The Bear suit blowjob

[MP]

Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....

In "The Shining's" climax, Wendy navigates her way through a maze of
horrors. In one scene she sees a figure in a bear suit engaging in
oral sex with a man in a tuxedo. This scene confuses many, but I think
it's simply indicating Wendy's unconscious fears. Throughout the film,
"woman" has been relegated to useless. In the eyes of Jack, the female
other merely exists to do chores, tend to children and satisfy the old
sperm back. Jack sees Wendy as nothing more than a place to deposit
sperm. This is her duty. Cook, clean and fuck.

But in this scene, Wendy's existence as the "female other" is finally
rendered useless. This horrifies Wendy. With this homosexual act, her
last duty as "sexual partner" has been cast aside. Man pleasing man
without woman. Essentially she fears that Jack no longer wants to have
sex with her. Her purpose and worth as "woman" is being called into
question. This is her own private horror.

This scene also recalls a moment at the beginning of the film. In this
early scene, Danny is examined by a doctor (notice he covers his
crotch). During this examination he lays down on a giant bear pillow
(Kubrick linking Danny to bear in much the same way he links Domino in
Eyes Wide Shut to the toy tiger?).

This early scene is all about introducing the audience to Danny's
child abuse. When we see the bear symbol again (man in a bear suit),
it's once again a scene of abuse. But this time it's sexual.

So perhaps Kubrick is either saying that Wendy discovered some sort of
sexual abuse between Jack and Danny, or the connection is the other
way around, and Kubrick is saying that the sexual abuse (and evil in
general) that took place in the Hotel is akin to the modern physical
abuse which takes place in the family unit. Note that the magazine
Jack reads in the lobby has a cover headline mentioning child abuse.
Note to that when Danny enters room 237, he says "mom?" several times.
Whenever he says "mom?" a picture on the wall of an Indian squal (who
resemebles Wendy) changes position and follows him.

Wendy witnesses the evil of room 237 but chooses to keep it behind
clsoed doors. She, like Jack, is guilty of repession.

On a simpler level, the primal symbol of the bear suit shows how the
upper class or elite perceive those below them. The "help" are mere
animals, who sit on their knees, dutifully tending to their polished
masters. The caretakers are unsophisticated and barbaric, whilst the
elite, dressed in their suits and tuxedos, are far more cultured and
civilized.

Also note that in the final hospital scene, deleted from all versions
of the film, Ullman vists Wendy in the hospital whilst wearing a large
bear fur coat.

So we have 3 bears. Danny laying on a bear and covering his crotch,
bear sucking cock (orders of the house) and Ullman dressed as a bear.

[kelpzoidzl]

On Jul 31, 2:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> In "The Shining's" climax, Wendy navigates her way through a maze of
> horrors. In one scene she sees a figure in a bear suit engaging in
> oral sex with a man in a tuxedo. This scene confuses many, but I think
> it's simply indicating Wendy's unconscious fears. Throughout the film,
> "woman" has been relegated to useless. In the eyes of Jack, the female
> other merely exists to do chores, tend to children and satisfy the old
> sperm back. Jack sees Wendy as nothing more than a place to deposit
> sperm. This is her duty. Cook, clean and fuck.
>
> But in this scene, Wendy's existence as the "female other" is finally
> rendered useless. This horrifies Wendy. With this homosexual act, her
> last duty as "sexual partner" has been cast aside.  Man pleasing man
> without woman. Essentially she fears that Jack no longer wants to have
> sex with her. Her purpose and worth as "woman" is being called into
> question. This is her own private horror.
>
> This scene also recalls a moment at the beginning of the film. In this
> early scene, Danny is examined by a doctor (notice he covers his
> crotch). During this examination he lays down on a giant bear pillow
> (Kubrick linking Danny to bear in much the same way he links Domino in
> Eyes Wide Shut to the toy tiger?).
>
> This early scene is all about introducing the audience to Danny's
> child abuse. When we see the bear symbol again (man in a bear suit),
> it's once again a scene of abuse. But this time it's sexual.
>
> So perhaps Kubrick is either saying that Wendy discovered some sort of
> sexual abuse between Jack and Danny, or the connection is the other
> way around, and Kubrick is saying that the sexual abuse (and evil in
> general) that took place in the Hotel is akin to the modern physical
> abuse which takes place in the family unit. Note that the magazine
> Jack reads in the lobby has a cover headline mentioning child abuse.
> Note to that when Danny enters room 237, he says "mom?" several times.
> Whenever he says "mom?" a picture on the wall of an Indian squal (who
> resemebles Wendy) changes position and follows him.
>
> Wendy witnesses the evil of room 237 but chooses to keep it behind
> clsoed doors. She, like Jack, is guilty of repession.
>
> On a simpler level, the primal symbol of the bear suit shows how the
> upper class or elite perceive those below them. The "help" are mere
> animals, who sit on their knees, dutifully tending to their polished
> masters. The caretakers are unsophisticated and barbaric, whilst the
> elite, dressed in their suits and tuxedos, are far more cultured and
> civilized.
>
> Also note that in the final hospital scene, deleted from all versions
> of the film, Ullman vists Wendy in the hospital whilst wearing a large
> bear fur coat.
>
> So we have 3 bears. Danny laying on a bear and covering his crotch,
> bear sucking cock (orders of the house) and Ullman dressed as a bear.

Hmmmm. Never thought or noticed any of this and wasn't aware of a
scene rmoved at the end.

The Bear "furry" scene....

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/65/shiningwierdht8.jpg

I alwasy just interopreted it as just bizarre hotel guests into
fetishes. Never saw any connections. I do seem to remember Ullman
wearing a heavy fur coat--when he was leaving the hotel?? I'll have
to keep this in mind next time I watch the film.



dc


.

[Harry Bailey]

On Jul 31, 10:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> In "The Shining's" climax, Wendy navigates her way through a maze of
> horrors. In one scene she sees a figure in a bear suit engaging in
> oral sex with a man in a tuxedo. This scene confuses many, but I think
> it's simply indicating Wendy's unconscious fears. Throughout the film,
> "woman" has been relegated to useless. In the eyes of Jack, the female
> other merely exists to do chores, tend to children and satisfy the old
> sperm back. Jack sees Wendy as nothing more than a place to deposit
> sperm. This is her duty. Cook, clean and fuck.
>
> But in this scene, Wendy's existence as the "female other" is finally
> rendered useless. This horrifies Wendy. With this homosexual act, her
> last duty as "sexual partner" has been cast aside.  Man pleasing man
> without woman. Essentially she fears that Jack no longer wants to have
> sex with her. Her purpose and worth as "woman" is being called into
> question. This is her own private horror.
>
> This scene also recalls a moment at the beginning of the film. In this
> early scene, Danny is examined by a doctor (notice he covers his
> crotch). During this examination he lays down on a giant bear pillow
> (Kubrick linking Danny to bear in much the same way he links Domino in
> Eyes Wide Shut to the toy tiger?).
>
> This early scene is all about introducing the audience to Danny's
> child abuse. When we see the bear symbol again (man in a bear suit),
> it's once again a scene of abuse. But this time it's sexual.
>
> So perhaps Kubrick is either saying that Wendy discovered some sort of
> sexual abuse between Jack and Danny, or the connection is the other
> way around, and Kubrick is saying that the sexual abuse (and evil in
> general) that took place in the Hotel is akin to the modern physical
> abuse which takes place in the family unit. Note that the magazine
> Jack reads in the lobby has a cover headline mentioning child abuse.
> Note to that when Danny enters room 237, he says "mom?" several times.
> Whenever he says "mom?" a picture on the wall of an Indian squal (who
> resemebles Wendy) changes position and follows him.
>
> Wendy witnesses the evil of room 237 but chooses to keep it behind
> clsoed doors. She, like Jack, is guilty of repession.
>
> On a simpler level, the primal symbol of the bear suit shows how the
> upper class or elite perceive those below them. The "help" are mere
> animals, who sit on their knees, dutifully tending to their polished
> masters. The caretakers are unsophisticated and barbaric, whilst the
> elite, dressed in their suits and tuxedos, are far more cultured and
> civilized.
>
> Also note that in the final hospital scene, deleted from all versions
> of the film, Ullman vists Wendy in the hospital whilst wearing a large
> bear fur coat.
>
> So we have 3 bears. Danny laying on a bear and covering his crotch,
> bear sucking cock (orders of the house) and Ullman dressed as a bear.

On a related note, I recall a post of your's that linked to the
Swedish silent-film director Victor Seastrom's 1921 classic, the
Gothic ghost-story The Phantom Carriage (Korkarlen), with its
extraordinarily coincidental similarities to certain scenes in The
Shining (a drunken Charles Grady figure axing through door panels to
gain access to his twin daughters and wife), at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv3VwRjyXU0

It seems the film has just been released on DVD along with Ingmar
Bergman's final TV drama from 2000, The Imagemakers, a fictional
recreation of the making of Seastrom's film (apparently, his film was
the inspiration for Bergman's entry into film-making ...):

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=65792
--------------
On the subject of bears, this unfortunate jarhead would have some
major difficulty 'servicing' the Overlook's patriarchal elite, though,
unlike David Bowman, he at least remembered to wear his space helmet
when going EVA:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2478421/Bear-with-jar-on-head-shot-dead.html

[amazing reading the Jack-Torrence-like-relishing rationalizations of
trigger-happy wildlife rangers using lethal bullets instead of a
simple tranquilliser dart. No more "Then I'll huff and I'll puff and
I'll blow your ..." etc for this poor Winnie The Pooh!]

[stalepie]

On Jul 31, 5:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> In "The Shining's" climax, Wendy navigates her way through a maze of
> horrors. In one scene she sees a figure in a bear suit engaging in
> oral sex with a man in a tuxedo. This scene confuses many, but I


VERY brilliant analysis! Should be added to Krusch or Kubrick Site!

[ichorwhip]

On Jul 31, 4:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....

Prolly should have called this thread "BJ and the Bear."

> In "The Shining's" climax, Wendy navigates her way through a maze of
> horrors. In one scene she sees a figure in a bear suit engaging in
> oral sex with a man in a tuxedo. This scene confuses many, but I think
> it's simply indicating Wendy's unconscious fears. Throughout the film,
> "woman" has been relegated to useless. In the eyes of Jack, the female
> other merely exists to do chores, tend to children and satisfy the old
> sperm back. Jack sees Wendy as nothing more than a place to deposit
> sperm. This is her duty. Cook, clean and fuck.
>
> But in this scene, Wendy's existence as the "female other" is finally
> rendered useless. This horrifies Wendy. With this homosexual act, her
> last duty as "sexual partner" has been cast aside.  Man pleasing man
> without woman. Essentially she fears that Jack no longer wants to have
> sex with her. Her purpose and worth as "woman" is being called into
> question. This is her own private horror.

But isn't "the bear" potentially neutral? What is it about that
bearsuit that makes us so sure it's a male underneath?
I wouldn't think it any other way upon instinct, but there is nothing
glaringly male about that bearsuit is there? The dressup fetish that
is present as a perverted cult in society isn't essentially a purely
homosexual thing is it? Or was that bearsuit rented at Rainbow
Costumes?

> This scene also recalls a moment at the beginning of the film. In this
> early scene, Danny is examined by a doctor (notice he covers his
> crotch). During this examination he lays down on a giant bear pillow
> (Kubrick linking Danny to bear in much the same way he links Domino in
> Eyes Wide Shut to the toy tiger?).

Yeah, why not? I think there's a lot of echoes of TS in EWS, and in
some ways they are thematically similar.

> This early scene is all about introducing the audience to Danny's
> child abuse.

That's not all, but yeah it's made clear that Danny had been abused,
"ft lbs... ft lbs..." It's also a bare attempt to address Danny's
undefined "something-else", his "Tony".

> When we see the bear symbol again (man in a bear suit),
> it's once again a scene of abuse. But this time it's sexual.
>
> So perhaps Kubrick is either saying that Wendy discovered some sort of
> sexual abuse between Jack and Danny, or the connection is the other
> way around, and Kubrick is saying that the sexual abuse (and evil in
> general) that took place in the Hotel is akin to the modern physical
> abuse which takes place in the family unit.

I detect no reason to believe that Jack sexually abused Danny. I
think that's a bit more of a twisted inference than anything Kubrick,
or even King, ever intended. Jack is just an abusive alcoholic and
that's quite bad enough.

> Note that the magazine
> Jack reads in the lobby has a cover headline mentioning child abuse.
> Note to that when Danny enters room 237, he says "mom?" several times.
> Whenever he says "mom?" a picture on the wall of an Indian squal (who
> resemebles Wendy) changes position and follows him.

I'll have to look for that, nice catch...

> Wendy witnesses the evil of room 237 but chooses to keep it behind
> clsoed doors. She, like Jack, is guilty of repression.
>
> On a simpler level, the primal symbol of the bear suit shows how the
> upper class or elite perceive those below them. The "help" are mere
> animals, who sit on their knees, dutifully tending to their polished
> masters.

Yes indeed, "polishing" them!

> The caretakers are unsophisticated and barbaric, whilst the
> elite, dressed in their suits and tuxedos, are far more cultured and
> civilized.

And yet ready to unzip at the drop of a front paw...

> Also note that in the final hospital scene, deleted from all versions
> of the film, Ullman vists Wendy in the hospital whilst wearing a large
> bear fur coat.

Well, it means little since Kubrick cut the scene, but the fact that
this cutscene exists does say something considering how Kubrick
regularly burned outtakes etcetera.

> So we have 3 bears. Danny laying on a bear and covering his crotch,
> bear sucking cock (orders of the house) and Ullman dressed as a bear.

I'll give you two and a half bears... ;-)

"Not by the hair of your chinny chin chin?!"
i
"piop"

[unknown]

On 2008-08-03 18:42:38 -0400, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> said:

> On Jul 31, 4:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> Prolly should have called this thread "BJ and the Bear."

It's actually a dog costume. The man in the dog costume even has a
name: Roger. The man in the tuxedo is Harry Derwent, the original owner
of the Overlook Hotel. King gives a lot of backstory information about
Roger and Harry in the novel. I didn't have the novel handy to refresh
my memory of what these two characters were up to, but this essay
explains it pretty well:

http://unspeakablehorror.com/journal/2006/10/28/the-shinings-dogman.html


G

[kelpzoidzl]

On Aug 6, 9:53 pm, gh wrote:
> On 2008-08-03 18:42:38 -0400, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On Jul 31, 4:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> > Prolly should have called this thread "BJ and the Bear."
>
> It's actually a dog costume. The man in the dog costume even has a
> name: Roger. The man in the tuxedo is Harry Derwent, the original owner
> of the Overlook Hotel. King gives a lot of backstory information about
> Roger and Harry in the novel. I didn't have the novel handy to refresh
> my memory of what these two characters were up to, but this essay
> explains it pretty well:
>
> http://unspeakablehorror.com/journal/2006/10/28/the-shinings-dogman.html
>
> G

SO much for the BEAR CONCEPT---but what breed is that?




dc

[MP]

Hi again, you guys basically raised 3 points.

1. The "bear" is a "dog".

Here's a screenshot I took:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5435/cap055rq0.jpg

Kubrick choses a "teddy bear" with the same nose, ears, color and oval
shape as the "dog suit". The implication is that both scenes are
linked. The fact that it is a "dog suit" actually bolsters what I was
saying earlier. Man has domesticated dogs. He keeps them obediently on
a leash.

2. The man in the "bear suit" is having playful, consensual sex.

If you isolate the scene it can be interpreted as being about "playful
consensual sex". But to believe this we'd have to ignore the rest of
the film. The Shining is not about anything consensual and whenever
the film mentions "playing" it always hits us with corpses seconds
later.

Look at that picture of Danny again. Look at his face.

My point is simply that both scenes are about abuse precisely because
the "bear" is included in both. Jack may be the caretaker of the
overlook, but he's also the caretaker of his family, and he's failed
at this role too. There's a sort of ugly dominance and victimization
portrayed in both scenes. America's dominance is the result of
victimizing others and rendering them subservient. This is mirrored to
Jack bullying his own family in an attempt to reassert himself.

Yes the "dog suit" scene is superficially scary, but I don't think
Kubrick just thew it in there to get a cheap shock (or laugh). It
relates to the larger themes of the film. ie- Men in suits degrading
their lapdogs. These lapdogs, feeling sick, broken and used, then go
home and proceed to degrade their family, in a desperate attempt to
reassert their masculinity. See, I suck dicks, but I'm still a man.
I'm still a man, god dammit! Fuck those niggers! Fuck my wife! I'm a
man!

3. It may be a woman in the costume.

King's book states that it is a homosexual man beneath the costume.
Still, one should not have to turn to King's book. I think it's clear
from the "size" and "shape" of the costume that the person underneath
is a man. At least that was my immediate feeling. If Kubrick wanted to
imply a woman, he'd have overtly done so.

We get a brief glimpse of his butt too, which I think looks rather
masculine.

The fact that it's men fucking also highlights the sexual uselessness
of Wendy. I've seen Wendy described as a pre-fertile Raggedy Anne doll
(think of her clothes when we're introduced to her). I guess "men
fucking men" is precisely the sort of horror which would challenge
Wendy's own sexuality.

[MP]

Hi again, you guys basically raised 3 points.


1. The "bear" is a "dog".

Here's a screenshot I took:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5435/cap055rq0.jpg

Kubrick choses a "teddy bear" with the same nose, ears, color and oval
shape as the "dog suit". The implication is that both scenes are
linked. The fact that it is a "dog suit" actually bolsters what I was
saying earlier. Man has domesticated dogs. He keeps them obediently on
a leash.

Also note that Danny is lying down and covering his crotch. The first
time we see the "dog suit" scene, the guy in the tuxedo is actually
lying down exactly as danny is, whilst the "dog suit" guy has his face
buried in the other's crotch. It is only seconds later that both men
sit upright.


2. The man in the "bear suit" is having playful, consensual sex.

If you isolate the scene it can be interpreted as being about "playful
consensual sex". But to believe this we'd have to ignore the rest of
the film. The Shining is not about anything consensual and whenever
the film mentions "playing" it always hits us with corpses seconds
later.

Look at that picture of Danny again. Look at his face.

My point is simply that both scenes are about abuse precisely because
the "bear" is included in both. Jack may be the caretaker of the
overlook, but he's also the caretaker of his family, and he's failed
at this role too. There's a sort of ugly dominance and victimization
portrayed in both scenes. America's dominance is the result of
victimizing others and rendering them subservient. This is mirrored to
Jack bullying his own family in an attempt to reassert himself.

Yes the "dog suit" scene is superficially scary, but I don't think
Kubrick just thew it in there to get a cheap shock (or laugh). It
relates to the larger themes of the film. ie- Men in suits degrading
their lapdogs. These lapdogs, feeling sick, broken and used, then go
home and proceed to degrade their family, in a desperate attempt to
reassert their masculinity. See, I suck dicks, but I'm still a man.
I'm still a man, god dammit! Fuck those niggers! Fuck my wife! I'm a
man!


3. It may be a woman in the costume.

King's book states that it is a homosexual man beneath the costume.
Still, one should not have to turn to King's book. I think it's clear
from the "size" and "shape" of the costume that the person underneath
is a man. At least that was my immediate feeling. If Kubrick wanted to
imply a woman, he'd have overtly done so.

We get a brief glimpse of his butt too, which I think looks rather
masculine.

The fact that it's men fucking also highlights the sexual uselessness
of Wendy. I've seen Wendy described as a pre-fertile Raggedy Anne doll
(think of her clothes when we're introduced to her). I guess "men
fucking men" is precisely the sort of horror which would challenge
Wendy's own sexuality.

[MP]

Hi again, you guys basically raised 3 points.


1. The "bear" is a "dog".

Here's a screenshot I took:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5435/cap055rq0.jpg

Kubrick choses a "teddy bear" with the same nose, ears, color and oval
shape as the "dog suit". The implication is that both scenes are
linked. The fact that it is a "dog suit" actually bolsters what I was
saying earlier. Man has domesticated dogs. He keeps them obediently on
a leash.

Also note that Danny is lying down and covering his crotch. The first
time we see Harry Derwent, he is actually lying down exactly as Danny
is, whilst his partner has his face buried in his crotch. It is only
seconds later that both men sit upright.


2. The man in the "bear suit" is having playful, consensual sex.

If you isolate the scene it can be interpreted as being about "playful
consensual sex". But to believe this we'd have to ignore the rest of
the film. The Shining is not about anything consensual and whenever
the film mentions "playing" it always hits us with corpses seconds
later.

Look at that picture of Danny again. Look at his face.

My point is simply that both scenes are about abuse precisely because
the "bear" is included in both. Jack may be the caretaker of the
Overlook, but he's also the caretaker of his family, and he's failed
at this role too. There's a sort of ugly dominance and victimization
portrayed in both scenes. America's dominance is the result of
victimizing others and rendering them subservient. This is mirrored to
Jack bullying his own family in an attempt to reassert himself.

Yes the "dog suit" scene is superficially scary, but I don't think
Kubrick just thew it in there to get a cheap shock (or laugh). It
relates to the larger themes of the film. ie- Men in suits degrading
their lapdogs. These lapdogs, feeling sick, broken and used, then go
home and proceed to degrade their family, in a desperate attempt to
reassert their masculinity. See, I suck dicks, but I'm still a man.
I'm still a man, god dammit! Fuck those niggers! Fuck my wife! I'm a
man! I suck dick, but I'm still a man!


3. It may be a woman in the costume.

King's book states that it is a homosexual man beneath the costume.
Still, one should not have to turn to King's book. I think it's clear
from the "size" and "shape" of the costume that the person underneath
is a man. At least that was my immediate feeling. If Kubrick wanted to
imply a woman, he'd have overtly done so.

We get a brief glimpse of his butt too, which I think looks rather
masculine.

The fact that it's men fucking also highlights the sexual uselessness
of Wendy. I've seen Wendy described as a pre-fertile Raggedy Anne doll
(think of her clothes when we're introduced to her). I guess "men
fucking men" is precisely the sort of horror which would challenge
Wendy's own sexuality.

[MP]

One more thing, there's a correlation between the five "horrors" that
Wendy sees and the "horrors" presented during the first few acts of
the film. Her visions are like the veils being lifted from her eyes.

These are the horrors she sees and these are the corresponding scenes
at the start of the film:

Dog suit blowjob - Danny with doctor
Halloran dead - We had to repel a few Indian attacks
Great party isn't it? - Donner Party
Elevators of blood - It's all so beautiful
Dead skeletons - Only the best

Of course such mirroring patterns permeate the entire film. Heck even
the "Summer of 42" which plays on the television is mirrored to the
"Winter of 21" at the end of the film.

[MP]

While I'm comparing the "doctor's sequence" with the "blow job
sequence", take a look at the dialogue in the former. There’s faint
sexual subtext to Danny’s conversation with the doctor.

Doctor: Can you remember what you were doing just before you started
brushing your teeth?
Danny: Talking to Tony.
Doctor: Is Tony one of your animals?
Danny: No, he’s the little boy who lives in my mouth.
Doctor: If you were to open your mouth, could I see Tony?
Danny: No.
Doctor: Why not?
Danny: Because he hides.
Doctor: Does Tony ever tell you to do things?
Danny: I don’t want to talk about Tony anymore.

The dialogue focuses on “mouths”, “animals”, “doing things” and
“hiding”. When pressured into telling what Tony does, Danny stops
talking. Tony has instructed him to tell nobody about their special
relationship.

Tony first appears when Jack physically abuses Danny. Danny first
shines in the green bathroom, with the curtains drawn behind him.
During a conversation to the doctor about Tony, Danny covers his
crotch whilst laying on a giant brown bear. “Does Tony ever tell you
to do things?” the doctor asks. “I don’t want to talk about Tony
anymore,” Danny replies.

In the next scene we see Jack sitting in the Hotel lobby. He’s reading
a 1978 issue of Playgirl magazine. The headline: “Incest: Why parents
sleep with their children.”

Midway in the film, "The Summer of 42" plays on the television. This
film is about the “improper” relationship between an older woman and
young boy. In room 237 Danny is abused by an old woman. Danny is
identified with the number 42. Jack plays with a yellow tennis ball. A
yellow tennis ball lures Danny to room 237 and Jack is the only one
with keys to room 237 (come play with me Danny).

Danny is abused in 237. He says an old woman did it. Jack enters the
green bathroom. The curtains part and Jack sees beauty. There is no
old woman, there is only lush loveliness. Jack embraces this beauty.
He then sees himself in the mirror and stares at his ugly reflection.
He sees the ugly truth. He did something terrible to Danny. He runs
away, turns his back to the bedroom mirror (himself) and denies his
actions.

I'm not suggesting that Jack is a paedophile, simply that the film is
awash with layers of horrors festering beneath it's tranquil surface.
Isn't Jack a "legacy of horrors" personified anyway? Cannibalism,
racism, beastiality, abuse, infidelity etc...why do we always have to
limit him to a bit an "alcoholic writer"?

[MP]

Sorry for the triple post. I linked the "blow job sequence" to the
"doctor's sequence"...perhaps the other 5 horrific visions that Wendy
sees links to earlier scenes as well.

1st Horror: Dog suit blowjob
2nd Horror: Halloran's corpse
3rd Horror: Great party, isn't it?
4th Horror: Elevators of blood
5th Horror: Room full of dead skeletons (is this the gold room or the
lounge?)

Dog suit blowjob- Danny with doctor
Halloran dead - We had to repel a few Indian attacks
Great party isn't it? - Donner Party? Off the wagon?
Elevators of blood - It's all so beautiful
Dead skeletons - Only the best people?

The five horrors that Wendy encounters definitely seems to have a sort
of progression. The veils are being lifted from her eyes and she
gradually begins to "see" more and more. Abuse at home leads to
Halloran's corpse which leads to elevators of genocide which leads to
the rotting corpses of those responsible.

Jack spends his life bending over backwards, obeying the orders of the
house. These submissive feeling give rise to anger and thus he takes
his hate out on those weaker than himself. Ironically the Hotel then
takes Jack’s resentment and insecurities and unfairly channels them
against external targets for it’s own private gain.

[MP]

Sorry for the triple post. I just wanted to point out the similarities
in both compositions:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5435/cap055rq0.jpg

Perhaps Jack is metaphorically the "animal friend" in both images?

Also, the "blow job sequence" is the first of 5 horrific visions that
Wendy has.

1st Horror: Dog suit blowjob
2nd Horror: Halloran's corpse
3rd Horror: Great party, isn't it?
4th Horror: Elevators of blood
5th Horror: Room full of dead skeletons (is this the gold room or the
lounge?)

Dog suit blowjob - Danny with doctor
Halloran dead - We had to repel a few Indian attacks
Great party isn't it? - Donner Party/off the wagon
Elevators of blood - It's all so beautiful
Dead skeletons - Only the best people


The five horrors that Wendy encounters seems to have a sort of
progression. The veils are being lifted from her eyes and she
gradually begins to "see" more and more. Abuse at home leads to
Halloran's corpse which leads to elevators of genocide which leads to
the rotting corpses of those responsible.

Jack spends his life bending over backwards, obeying the orders of the
house. These submissive feeling give rise to anger and thus he takes
his hate out on those weaker than himself. Ironically the Hotel then
takes Jack’s resentment and insecurities and unfairly channels them
against external targets for it’s own private gain.

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 7, 8:12 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the triple post. I just wanted to point out the similarities
> in both compositions:
>
> http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5435/cap055rq0.jpg
>
> Perhaps Jack is metaphorically the "animal friend" in both images?
>
> Also, the "blow job sequence" is the first of 5 horrific visions that
> Wendy has.
>
> 1st Horror: Dog suit blowjob
> 2nd Horror: Halloran's corpse
> 3rd Horror: Great party, isn't it?
> 4th Horror: Elevators of blood
> 5th Horror: Room full of dead skeletons (is this the gold room or the
> lounge?)
>
> Dog suit blowjob - Danny with doctor
> Halloran dead - We had to repel a few Indian attacks
> Great party isn't it? - Donner Party/off the wagon
> Elevators of blood - It's all so beautiful
> Dead skeletons - Only the best people
>
> The five horrors that Wendy encounters seems to have a sort of
> progression. The veils are being lifted from her eyes and she
> gradually begins to "see" more and more. Abuse at home leads to
> Halloran's corpse which leads to elevators of genocide which leads to
> the rotting corpses of those responsible.
>
> Jack spends his life bending over backwards, obeying the orders of the
> house. These submissive feeling give rise to anger and thus he takes
> his hate out on those weaker than himself. Ironically the Hotel then
> takes Jack’s resentment and insecurities and unfairly channels them
> against external targets for it’s own private gain.

Good points, MP. Yes, the power structures in Jack's world are clearly
spelled out during the Interview scene. Jack's subservient, 'lapdog'
submission to class structure (his eager playing up to Ullman, for
instance) is already internalised long before he gets to the Overlook:
he's already been colonized by class dialectics, already 'knows' and
'feels' inferior to the Agents of the Overlook (Capital), but instead
of confronting these antagonisms, instead of realizing or
understanding the class-based sources of his self-loathing and endemic
frustration and economic dependencies, he chooses instead to displace
it all in the usual - mysoginistic and racist - way (with the
Overlook, its agents [Ullman] and specters [Grady, Lloyd] fully
facilitating such deflection/displacement). He reasserts a - parody -
of patriarchy, treating his wife and son as passive, obedient
possessions at his beck and call ie he treats them as the Overlook
treats him, passing on the Overlook's oppression of him on to his
family, perpetuating the abuse-begetting-abuse circuit on which
patriarchal capitalism depends for its reproduction. "They'll love
it", Jack reassures Ullman at the interview when Ullman expresses fake
concern about Jack's family; no need here for Jack to discuss the
caretaker job with his family, to seek their 'consent', for he now has
a 'signed and written contract with his employers', but all work and
no play for dull Jack is not enough for the Overlook, for the latter
wants him to 'play', to 'do his duty', just as the spectral Grady
twins want Danny to come 'play' with them (ie to suffer their fate).

The dogman/bearman/wolfman issue has numerous resonances that, as you
argue, go far beyond trivial attempts to decontextualize it from both
the film's narrative and central themes or reducing it to some kinky
consumer soft porn titillation (like it was a bit of whimsical
destraction, a temporary 'commercial break' from the narrative's
otherwise grim, tragic, and ineluctable trajectory). Indeed, in a film
that is examining both family and history, that is to say, family
history, which as Fisher points out in his analysis of the film, is
the provenance of psychoanalysis, it is certainly interesting that one
of Freud most famous case studies was about the "Wolfman" (and the
film has also been labelled as 'gothic horror'), where issues of
sexuality and abuse were foremost.

The issue, of course, isn't whether Jack is a 'paedophile' (or, more
hilariously, whether the oh-so-brief scene involving the dogman and
Derwent is 'legal', 'a signed written contract!!!'), for such would be
to reduce all sexuality to the standard copulating tropes - fucking,
sucking, masterbating, etc, rather than recognizing that there is
always a power relationship underlying all sexuality ('sexual
politics' etc) and that, in fact, all violence has a sexual dimension.
Nobody, for instance, is going to seriously argue that the 'torture
porn' images we all saw of Abu Ghraib did not have a pretty
heavyweight sexual dimension, of sexual humiliation and violent,
libidinally-charged abuse (even though many of the images were like
perverse snuff simulations of crappy, seedy, low-rent porn videos from
the past, in another instance of consumer culture iconography
replicating itself in war). It should be obvious, instead, that
violent abuse ALWAYS has a sexual dimension, even if its the Batman
fighting with the Joker, or a father severely spanking his son or
daughter. In this context, it is also telling that Kubrick transfers
some of the Dogman's big-bad-wolf speech in King's novel to Jack in
the film when he's breaking down the bathroom door (I''ll huff and
I'll puff" etc) and, revealingly, remember the painting of a wolf at
the entrance to the bathroom in room 237.

[ichorwhip]

On Aug 7, 10:59 am, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi again, you guys basically raised 3 points.
>
> 1. The "bear" is a "dog".
>
> Here's a screenshot I took:
>
> http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5435/cap055rq0.jpg
>
> Kubrick choses a "teddy bear" with the same nose, ears, color and oval
> shape as the "dog suit". The implication is that both scenes are
> linked. The fact that it is a "dog suit" actually bolsters what I was
> saying earlier. Man has domesticated dogs. He keeps them obediently on
> a leash.
>
> Also note that Danny is lying down and covering his crotch. The first
> time we see Harry Derwent, he is actually lying down exactly as Danny
> is, whilst his partner has his face buried in his crotch. It is only
> seconds later that both men sit upright.
>
> 2. The man in the "bear suit" is having playful, consensual sex.
>
> If you isolate the scene it can be interpreted as being about "playful
> consensual sex". But to believe this we'd have to ignore the rest of
> the film. The Shining is not about anything consensual and whenever
> the film mentions "playing" it always hits us with corpses seconds
> later.

That's right, and the idea that anything of much substance in "The
Shining" is "playful" and "consensual" just about blows my mind. The
Overlook especially is diabolical and sinister in it's very
preternaturalness.

> Look at that picture of Danny again. Look at his face.
>
> My point is simply that both scenes are about abuse precisely because
> the "bear" is included in both. Jack may be the caretaker of the
> Overlook, but he's also the caretaker of his family, and he's failed
> at this role too. There's a sort of ugly dominance and victimization
> portrayed in both scenes. America's dominance is the result of
> victimizing others and rendering them subservient. This is mirrored to
> Jack bullying his own family in an attempt to reassert himself.
>
> Yes the "dog suit" scene is superficially scary, but I don't think
> Kubrick just thew it in there to get a cheap shock (or laugh). It
> relates to the larger themes of the film. ie- Men in suits degrading
> their lapdogs. These lapdogs, feeling sick, broken and used, then go
> home and proceed to degrade their family, in a desperate attempt to
> reassert their masculinity. See, I suck dicks, but I'm still a man.
> I'm still a man, god dammit! Fuck those niggers! Fuck my wife! I'm a
> man! I suck dick, but I'm still a man!
>
> 3. It may be a woman in the costume.
>
> King's book states that it is a homosexual man beneath the costume.

Does it? It's been so long and so many books since I read it I'd
forgotten, my bad.

> Still, one should not have to turn to King's book. I think it's clear
> from the "size" and "shape" of the costume that the person underneath
> is a man. At least that was my immediate feeling. If Kubrick wanted to
> imply a woman, he'd have overtly done so.
>
> We get a brief glimpse of his butt too, which I think looks rather
> masculine.

Good argument, I've always "thought" it was a man, but then again I
see women everyday as masculine as you please, of course you won't
catch them crotch-gobbling some snot in a tuxedo.

> The fact that it's men fucking also highlights the sexual uselessness
> of Wendy. I've seen Wendy described as a pre-fertile Raggedy Anne doll
> (think of her clothes when we're introduced to her). I guess "men
> fucking men" is precisely the sort of horror which would challenge
> Wendy's own sexuality.

"I didn't see one goddam thing."
i
"piop"

[Don Stockbauer]

The Bear suit blowjob

***********************

Why would an inanimate object like a bear suit enjoy a bj???????

[ichorwhip]

On Aug 7, 5:44 pm, Don Stockbauer <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Bear suit blowjob
>
> ***********************
>
> Why would an inanimate object like a bear suit enjoy a bj???????

I think you are the guy in the suit, aren'tcha Suckboner? Idiot...

[Don Stockbauer]

Whatever happened to old ichorwhip? Did he die, or change aliases, which is the same thing?

[kelpzoidzl]

He was here a few months ago. He dropped by to say he wasn't using a new alias.

Meanwhile I'm busy rewatching Interstellar. What a film!

There's a hilarious Kubrick reference near the beginning.

[Don Stockbauer]

I know you're impressed by Interstellar, but there are aspects of the plot which puts it more in the categogy of fantasy rather than science fiction. For example, a gravitational field strong enough to cause such time dilation at the 3 planets being explored would have torn the astronauts apart. Also, the part about the 3 planets orbiting the chaos of a supermassive black hole rather than the stability of a star.

[kelpzoidzl]

Kip Thorne makes the case in "The Science of Interstellar," that if the black hole is big enough and rotating at 99.8% of maximum, It is mathematically possible for Miler's planet not to be sucked in. Placing Gargantua within our solar system, means that there is no need for a Warp drive to get there. Nolan told Thorne the ratio of 1 hour (their time) for 7 years (earth time) was "non-negotiable," and to figure out mathematically how it could be done, so he did. Srsly if this is fantasy, not sci-fi, then what sci-fi, is sci-fi?

But this is not where I see the greatness of this film. It's the handling of the 4th and 5th dimensions and the communication of the "ghost," and the force of "love" where the film is great.

It jives with the actual experience of Samadhi. Something real that actually happens, where crossing an event horizon during Samadhi, actually occurs experientially. No science today can explain why there are 100 milion + black holes in our galaxy alone, but from the Buddhist pov, the ranking of black holes, ie., size and spin, etc. and the stars, is not only explainable, but fundamental to how things really work. Seeing how it works in actual experience is possible, but explaining it mathematically is not yet possible, because science still decapitates subjective experience from objective reality. Yet, the answers, are in the cosmology of the Lotus Sutra, which needs to become a science textbook roadmap for future understanding. Ultimately one has to see it for themselves. I saw it in 1968 on a double dose of STP given to me outside Whisk a go go on Sunset blvd. i went home, took the two 40 mg pills glanced at the great mandala, on my Laurel Canyon, wall, entered Samadhi and within minutes, went into the black hole. It was automatic. I was not torn apart because i didn't need to drag my body or surroundings into the black hole with me. I was the Black Hole.

OMG, i looked up from the IPAD and two squirrels in the are fucking in the vines.

[kelpzoidzl]

The squirrels were a distraction. Little fuckers.

Read this and see the ranking of black holes.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/lotus/lot14.htm

[kelpzoidzl]

Keep in mind the sutra linked above is the same sect of Buddhism spoken of by ("crypto-buddhist") Clarke when he said "we have just found out there is a Buddhist Sect that worships a black rectagular slab."

The "Jewel trees," in all directions of space, in the sutra, are the cone shaped "cylinders," the Tathagatas (thusly gone in Sanskrit) are the singularities. Now read it and convert it into modern physics.

[kelpzoidzl]

Furthermore, the "Nine Consciousnesses" of buddhism includes the Alaya Consciousness (Eighth consciousness) which is the Akashic records (karma storage) is depicted as the 5th dimension in the film, the "communication" from there is only possible from the Ninth Consciousness (or Throne of the Eternal Buddha)

Practice is necessary. The mechanism of all this was workable even by people in more ancient times.

[kelpzoidzl]

The "Ninth Consciousness" Amala defined through translation. Most terms below give both the Japanese word and the Sanskrit

"Cognition of Pure Mind, (Ninth) the - Japanese: Amarashiki - Sanskrit: Amala-vijñāna
In Japanese there are various definitions of this cognition, the cognition free from defilement (mukushiki) the immaculately pure cognition (shōjōshiki) the cognition of real suchness (shinnyoshiki). The word cognition is used to indicate a way of knowing dharmas (or whatever that may have an effect on any of our five aggregates) that may have an effect on any of our five aggregates whether they are inside our heads or not.

The nine cognitions (nine conscioysnesses) are as follows.

1) The cognition of the eyes - seeing
2) The cognition of the ears - hearing
3) The cognition of the nose - smelling
4) The cognition of the tongue - taste
5) The cognition of the body - touch
6) The cognition of mental activity without precise thought, just seeing, hearing etc. as well as instinctive reactions.
7) The cognition of mind as the faculty of thought
8) The storehouse cognition (skt: Alaya, Akashic records, the karma storage in slang)
9) The cognition of pure mind

Tendai (T’ien T’ai (China 6th century) refers to the ninth cognition (daikushiki, amarashiki, amala-vijñāna) as the sovereign of the mind and the fundamental source of all the dharmas (or whatever that may have an effect on any of our five aggregates) as well as being the central axis on which they revolve. In other words it is everything that is inscribed on the Fundamental Object of Veneration (gohonzon) or the very essence of life itself. In the Buddha teaching of Shākyamuni this cognition is sometimes described as have got rid of the taints of delusion that are associated with the storehouse cognition arayashiki, alaya-vijñāna. Tendai (T’ien T’ai) also writes in his Recondite Significance of the Sutra on the Illumination of the Golden Light, “The ninth is the cognition of the Buddha”. However in the Buddha teaching of Nichiren, it is understood that the Buddha realm bukkai is not separate from the other nine realms of dharmas kyukai. Hence through the continual practise of the Nichiren school and by developing a faith in the Fundamental Object of Veneration (gohonzon) we can open up our inherent Buddha nature with our respective persons just as they are, ( soku shin jō Butsu---attaining the state of Buddha just as we are (simple common mortal) "

[kelpzoidzl]

You have to talk to it, using the sacred words, to initiate the experience. (Talk to the black rectangular slab, great mandala, transferred from the original Buddha to the leader of the Bodhissatvas of the Earth in Kuon Ganjo, Time without beginning.).

Saying these words and devoting ones self to it, require STRONG practice and single minded, fixed, single moment, contemplation, where the thoughts in the mind, come gradually and utterly to a stop. This stopping, is the same meaning as stopping time. Once that is attained then crossing the event horizon begins and reality as it is, (shoho jisso) unfolds and unwinds, like being in the eye of a cyclone turned on it's side, till one is fused as the singularity. Don't worry, there are plenty of black holes to go around.

Now where did those squirrels go? Off for a little more of the in-out I suspect. Maybe they were embarassed by my watching.

[kelpzoidzl]

Man bear pig was embarrassed to be caught in the act.

[kelpzoidzl]

"50 intermediate Kalpas" mentioned in the Sutra linked to above = 8.4x 10 to the third power, earth years. "But it felt like a single afternoon."

[kelpzoidzl]

One squirrel says to the other squirrel, "Don't you wanna go where the Rainbow Ends?"

[m***@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 12:02:58 PM UTC-5, kelpzoidzl wrote:
> Kip Thorne makes the case in "The Science of Interstellar," that if the black hole is big enough and rotating at 99.8% of maximum, It is mathematically possible for Miler's planet not to be sucked in. Placing Gargantua within our solar system, means that there is no need for a Warp drive to get there. Nolan told Thorne the ratio of 1 hour (their time) for 7 years (earth time) was "non-negotiable," and to figure out mathematically how it could be done, so he did. Srsly if this is fantasy, not sci-fi, then what sci-fi, is sci-fi?
>
> But this is not where I see the greatness of this film. It's the handling of the 4th and 5th dimensions and the communication of the "ghost," and the force of "love" where the film is great.
>
> It jives with the actual experience of Samadhi. Something real that actually happens, where crossing an event horizon during Samadhi, actually occurs experientially. No science today can explain why there are 100 milion + black holes in our galaxy alone, but from the Buddhist pov, the ranking of black holes, ie., size and spin, etc. and the stars, is not only explainable, but fundamental to how things really work. Seeing how it works in actual experience is possible, but explaining it mathematically is not yet possible, because science still decapitates subjective experience from objective reality. Yet, the answers, are in the cosmology of the Lotus Sutra, which needs to become a science textbook roadmap for future understanding. Ultimately one has to see it for themselves. I saw it in 1968 on a double dose of STP given to me outside Whisk a go go on Sunset blvd. i went home, took the two 40 mg pills glanced at the great mandala, on my Laurel Canyon, wall, entered Samadhi and within minutes, went into the black hole. It was automatic. I was not torn apart because i didn't need to drag my body or surroundings into the black hole with me. I was the Black Hole.
>
> OMG, i looked up from the IPAD and two squirrels in the are fucking in the vines.

kelp,

Some of words seem to getting sucked into Black Hol

[kelpzoidzl]

Wull, you got too close and are stretched.... Try to reconstitute.

Kip Thorne: When a black hole is spun up, its shell of fire expands outward and inward, so it occupies a finite volume rather than just the surface of a sphere. For Gargantua, with its huge spin, the shell of fire in the equatorial plane extends from the bottom red circle of Figure 6.3 to the upper red circle. The shell of fire has expanded to encompass Miller's planet and the critical orbit, and much, much more! The bottom red circle is a light ray (a photon orbit) that moves around and around Gargantua in the same direction as Gargantua spins (the forward direction). The upper red circle is a photon orbit that moves in the opposite direction to Gargantua's spin (the backward direction). Evidently, the whirl of space enables the forward light to be much closer to the horizon without falling in than the backward light. What a huge effect the space whirl has!"

[kelpzoidzl]

In reality, trying to get in by the back door up in space, is messy.

[m***@yahoo.com]

I imagine Stanley would have been amused and maybe mildly insulted by the attempts made above to understand his intentions by studying Stephen King's version of 'The Shining'.

I am amused, though not insulted.

[kelpzoidzl]

You are back to the bearsuit. I think the bearsuited guy and his master, is embarrassed to be caught in the act. Look at their faces. Plain and simple. Denizens of the overlook have overiding shame.

[m***@yahoo.com]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 5:13:45 PM UTC-5, kelpzoidzl wrote:
> You are back to the bearsuit. I think the bearsuited guy and his master, is embarrassed to be caught in the act. Look at their faces. Plain and simple. Denizens of the overlook have overiding shame.

I wasn't referring to the context... just the attempt.

No doubt the dogbear is embarrassed. You're right about that. I can see it in his/her/its face.

Also, you have inspired me to hunt down 'Interstellar'.

:)

[ichorwhip]

On Aug 7, 8:47 am, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 9:53 pm, gh wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-08-03 18:42:38 -0400, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > On Jul 31, 4:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> > > Prolly should have called this thread "BJ and the Bear."
>
> > It's actually a dog costume. The man in the dog costume even has a
> > name: Roger. The man in the tuxedo is Harry Derwent, the original owner
> > of the Overlook Hotel. King gives a lot of backstory information about
> > Roger and Harry in the novel. I didn't have the novel handy to refresh
> > my memory of what these two characters were up to, but this essay
> > explains it pretty well:
>
> >http://unspeakablehorror.com/journal/2006/10/28/the-shinings-dogman.html
>
> > G
>
> SO much for the BEAR CONCEPT---but what breed is that?
>
> dc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A Colorado Suckhound...

[kelpzoidzl]

On Aug 7, 1:00 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 8:47 am, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 9:53 pm, gh wrote:
>
> > > On 2008-08-03 18:42:38 -0400, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > > On Jul 31, 4:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> > > > Prolly should have called this thread "BJ and the Bear."
>
> > > It's actually a dog costume. The man in the dog costume even has a
> > > name: Roger. The man in the tuxedo is Harry Derwent, the original owner
> > > of the Overlook Hotel. King gives a lot of backstory information about
> > > Roger and Harry in the novel. I didn't have the novel handy to refresh
> > > my memory of what these two characters were up to, but this essay
> > > explains it pretty well:
>
> > >http://unspeakablehorror.com/journal/2006/10/28/the-shinings-dogman.html
>
> > > G
>
> > SO much for the BEAR CONCEPT---but what breed is that?
>
> > dc- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A Colorado Suckhound...-


lolololol perfect----cant be topped.

Thread name needs changing,

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 7, 2:47 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 9:53 pm, gh wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-08-03 18:42:38 -0400, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > On Jul 31, 4:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> > > Prolly should have called this thread "BJ and the Bear."
>
> > It's actually a dog costume. The man in the dog costume even has a
> > name: Roger. The man in the tuxedo is Harry Derwent, the original owner
> > of the Overlook Hotel. King gives a lot of backstory information about
> > Roger and Harry in the novel. I didn't have the novel handy to refresh
> > my memory of what these two characters were up to, but this essay
> > explains it pretty well:
>
> >http://unspeakablehorror.com/journal/2006/10/28/the-shinings-dogman.html
>
> > G
>
> SO much for the BEAR CONCEPT---but what breed is that?
>

Yeah, but what's interesting about the film is how Kubrick carefully
calibrates, problematizes, and metonymically treats the three ideas of
dog, bear, and wolf throughout the narrative in order to enrich and
reinforce the film's themes.

Take, for instance, the theme of the Uncanny (the disturbing within
the reassuring, the threatening within the familiar, the 'return of
the repressed'): Danny lying on his bed on top of a Teddy Bear, the
very image of the homely, the friendly, the comfy, and the safe, of
reassuring domesticity and blissful innocence and fulfillment. But an
actual bear is also simultaneously associated with the very opposite,
with the unhomely, the threatening, the wild and violent, the
menacing, the invasive, etc.

Similarly, Kubrick's use of the dog and wolf motifs: the dogman as
puppy lapdog, just like Jack, servicing the 'needs' of the Hotel's
privileged elite. But a wolf is also a dog, undomesticated, as we
witness Jack transforming from lapdog to feral, predatory wolf,
simultaneously an obedient lapdog to the Overlook and a violent,
homicidal wolf to his family.

[kelpzoidzl]

On Aug 7, 6:10 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2:47 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 9:53 pm, gh wrote:
>
> > > On 2008-08-03 18:42:38 -0400, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > > On Jul 31, 4:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> > > > Prolly should have called this thread "BJ and the Bear."
>
> > > It's actually a dog costume. The man in the dog costume even has a
> > > name: Roger. The man in the tuxedo is Harry Derwent, the original owner
> > > of the Overlook Hotel. King gives a lot of backstory information about
> > > Roger and Harry in the novel. I didn't have the novel handy to refresh
> > > my memory of what these two characters were up to, but this essay
> > > explains it pretty well:
>
> > >http://unspeakablehorror.com/journal/2006/10/28/the-shinings-dogman.html
>
> > > G
>
> > SO much for the BEAR CONCEPT---but what breed is that?
>
> Yeah, but what's interesting about the film is how Kubrick carefully
> calibrates, problematizes, and metonymically treats the three ideas of
> dog, bear, and wolf throughout the narrative in order to enrich and
> reinforce the film's themes.
>
> Take, for instance, the theme of the Uncanny (the disturbing within
> the reassuring, the threatening within the familiar, the 'return of
> the repressed'): Danny lying on his bed on top of a Teddy Bear, the
> very image of the homely, the friendly, the comfy, and the safe, of
> reassuring domesticity and blissful innocence and fulfillment. But an
> actual bear is also simultaneously associated with the very opposite,
> with the unhomely, the threatening, the wild and violent, the
> menacing, the invasive, etc.
>
> Similarly, Kubrick's use of the dog and wolf motifs: the dogman as
> puppy lapdog, just like Jack, servicing the 'needs' of the Hotel's
> privileged elite. But a wolf is also a dog, undomesticated, as we
> witness Jack transforming from lapdog to feral, predatory wolf,
> simultaneously an obedient lapdog to the Overlook and a violent,
> homicidal wolf to his family.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


A book "Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the America:By Nicholas J.
Saunders


"Therefore, various cultures the world over--ancient and modern--have
depicted their shaman as semi-divine, showing them as compositie
beings; part stag, part wolf, part tiger, part bear, and in the case
of ancient Andean culture, part Jaguar."


Perhaps "Tony," is behind all of this.

Who is Tony? "A little boy who lives in my mouth."



(This is scary.....Doing a seach on "part dog part bear" trying to
recall the name of the composite animals of the native Americans, I
found this photography discussion--Scroll down for photos

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:kBhyh7X8INEJ:www.fredmiranda.com/forum/next/596866+%22part+dog+part+bear%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us
)


Now that is a Colorado Suckhound


dc

[kelpzoidzl]

On Aug 8, 9:09 am, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 6:10 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 2:47 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 6, 9:53 pm, gh wrote:
>
> > > > On 2008-08-03 18:42:38 -0400, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > > > On Jul 31, 4:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> > > > > Prolly should have called this thread "BJ and the Bear."
>
> > > > It's actually a dog costume. The man in the dog costume even has a
> > > > name: Roger. The man in the tuxedo is Harry Derwent, the original owner
> > > > of the Overlook Hotel. King gives a lot of backstory information about
> > > > Roger and Harry in the novel. I didn't have the novel handy to refresh
> > > > my memory of what these two characters were up to, but this essay
> > > > explains it pretty well:
>
> > > >http://unspeakablehorror.com/journal/2006/10/28/the-shinings-dogman.html
>
> > > > G
>
> > > SO much for the BEAR CONCEPT---but what breed is that?
>
> > Yeah, but what's interesting about the film is how Kubrick carefully
> > calibrates, problematizes, and metonymically treats the three ideas of
> > dog, bear, and wolf throughout the narrative in order to enrich and
> > reinforce the film's themes.
>
> > Take, for instance, the theme of the Uncanny (the disturbing within
> > the reassuring, the threatening within the familiar, the 'return of
> > the repressed'): Danny lying on his bed on top of a Teddy Bear, the
> > very image of the homely, the friendly, the comfy, and the safe, of
> > reassuring domesticity and blissful innocence and fulfillment. But an
> > actual bear is also simultaneously associated with the very opposite,
> > with the unhomely, the threatening, the wild and violent, the
> > menacing, the invasive, etc.
>
> > Similarly, Kubrick's use of the dog and wolf motifs: the dogman as
> > puppy lapdog, just like Jack, servicing the 'needs' of the Hotel's
> > privileged elite. But a wolf is also a dog, undomesticated, as we
> > witness Jack transforming from lapdog to feral, predatory wolf,
> > simultaneously an obedient lapdog to the Overlook and a violent,
> > homicidal wolf to his family.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A book "Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the America:By Nicholas J.
> Saunders
>
> "Therefore, various cultures the world over--ancient and modern--have
> depicted their shaman as semi-divine, showing them as compositie
> beings; part stag, part wolf, part tiger, part bear, and in the case
> of ancient Andean culture, part Jaguar."
>
> Perhaps "Tony," is behind all of this.
>
> Who is Tony? "A little boy who lives in my mouth."
>
> (This is scary.....Doing a seach on "part dog part bear"   trying to
> recall the name of the composite animals of the native Americans,  I
> found this photography discussion--Scroll down for photos
>
> http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:kBhyh7X8INEJ:www.fredmiranda.com...
> )
>
> Now that is a Colorado Suckhound
>
> dc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oh yeah ....John Frankenheimer's terrible horror film based on a scary
book

I read the book and the Monster/creature was a mutant composite of
animals. The film was ruined by the dumbest looking monster eevr....
The book had initially compared it to Native Ameican legends, then it
ended up being a Mutant caused by environmental toxins if I remember
correctly.


oddly the poster for the film bears, a resemblance to a deformed
Starbaby.


But I did find the name I was looking for:

Katahdin---a common name in Maine (Stephan King's state of course)
based on native american legends.about a creature and a spirit living
in a mountain who to the Abenaki tribe is a monotheistic god who
marries a girl-------was also the name the of the creature in the book
The Prophecy a bearlike composite of all kinds of animals.



dc

[kelpzoidzl]

On Aug 8, 9:52 am, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 9:09 am, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 6:10 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 7, 2:47 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 6, 9:53 pm, gh wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2008-08-03 18:42:38 -0400, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 31, 4:03 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Some thoughts on the famous "bear suit blowjob" scene....
>
> > > > > > Prolly should have called this thread "BJ and the Bear."
>
> > > > > It's actually a dog costume. The man in the dog costume even has a
> > > > > name: Roger. The man in the tuxedo is Harry Derwent, the original owner
> > > > > of the Overlook Hotel. King gives a lot of backstory information about
> > > > > Roger and Harry in the novel. I didn't have the novel handy to refresh
> > > > > my memory of what these two characters were up to, but this essay
> > > > > explains it pretty well:
>
> > > > >http://unspeakablehorror.com/journal/2006/10/28/the-shinings-dogman.html
>
> > > > > G
>
> > > > SO much for the BEAR CONCEPT---but what breed is that?
>
> > > Yeah, but what's interesting about the film is how Kubrick carefully
> > > calibrates, problematizes, and metonymically treats the three ideas of
> > > dog, bear, and wolf throughout the narrative in order to enrich and
> > > reinforce the film's themes.
>
> > > Take, for instance, the theme of the Uncanny (the disturbing within
> > > the reassuring, the threatening within the familiar, the 'return of
> > > the repressed'): Danny lying on his bed on top of a Teddy Bear, the
> > > very image of the homely, the friendly, the comfy, and the safe, of
> > > reassuring domesticity and blissful innocence and fulfillment. But an
> > > actual bear is also simultaneously associated with the very opposite,
> > > with the unhomely, the threatening, the wild and violent, the
> > > menacing, the invasive, etc.
>
> > > Similarly, Kubrick's use of the dog and wolf motifs: the dogman as
> > > puppy lapdog, just like Jack, servicing the 'needs' of the Hotel's
> > > privileged elite. But a wolf is also a dog, undomesticated, as we
> > > witness Jack transforming from lapdog to feral, predatory wolf,
> > > simultaneously an obedient lapdog to the Overlook and a violent,
> > > homicidal wolf to his family.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > A book "Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the America:By Nicholas J.
> > Saunders
>
> > "Therefore, various cultures the world over--ancient and modern--have
> > depicted their shaman as semi-divine, showing them as compositie
> > beings; part stag, part wolf, part tiger, part bear, and in the case
> > of ancient Andean culture, part Jaguar."
>
> > Perhaps "Tony," is behind all of this.
>
> > Who is Tony? "A little boy who lives in my mouth."
>
> > (This is scary.....Doing a seach on "part dog part bear"   trying to
> > recall the name of the composite animals of the native Americans,  I
> > found this photography discussion--Scroll down for photos
>
> >http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:kBhyh7X8INEJ:www.fredmiranda.com...
> > )
>
> > Now that is a Colorado Suckhound
>
> > dc- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh yeah ....John Frankenheimer's terrible horror film based on a scary
> book
>
> I read the book and the Monster/creature was  a mutant composite of
> animals.  The film was ruined by the dumbest looking monster eevr....
> The book had initially compared it to Native Ameican legends, then it
> ended up being a Mutant caused by environmental toxins if I remember
> correctly.
>
> oddly the poster for the film bears,  a resemblance to a deformed
> Starbaby.
>
> But I did find the name I was looking for:
>
> Katahdin---a common name in Maine (Stephan King's state of course)
> based on native american legends.about a creature and a spirit living
> in a mountain who to the Abenaki tribe is a monotheistic god who
> marries a girl-------was also the name the of the creature in the book
> The Prophecy a bearlike composite of all kinds of animals.
>
> dc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Somehow the link to "The Prophecy" poster, with the deformed
starbaby, I had included in my last post had vanished.

http://www.obscurehorror.com/horror805.html

dc

[Alexis Mayans]

> This early scene is all about introducing the audience to Danny's
> child abuse. When we see the bear symbol again (man in a bear suit),
> it's once again a scene of abuse. But this time it's sexual.

I think you'll find it's a scene of pleasure - two apparently consenting
adults. Which makes it the diametric opposite of abuse. And why is it a man
(not a woman) in a bear suit?

Alexis

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 6, 1:05 am, Alexis Mayans <***@chairmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> > This early scene is all about introducing the audience to Danny's
> > child abuse. When we see the bear symbol again (man in a bear suit),
> > it's once again a scene of abuse. But this time it's sexual.
>
> I think you'll find it's a scene of pleasure - two apparently consenting
> adults. Which makes it the diametric opposite of abuse. And why is it a man
> (not a woman) in a bear suit?
>
> Alexis

"Two apparently consenting adults". The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
worker' freely choosing this line of work? Maybe , like, he's
unionised and getting spectral triple pay for working such late hours
(and holed up in the middle of Winter at an inaccessible hotel). Like
Domino and Mandy and all the other deliberately passified women at
Somerton in EWS, they are 'merely' sex workers engaging in 'pleasure',
full mature consenting adults totally in control of their political,
social, and economic environment, really really desiring to be happy
happy pleasured sex slaves, cuz, like, Ziegler tells us so, tells us
Mandy was just a 'hooker'. And Ziegler is such an honourable man ...
and the door was locked from the inside, and the police are happy, and
end of story (mouth fart).

[And I suppose all the sweatshops and all the brothels of the world
are filled with pleasure seeking 'consenting adults' ... maybe even
the poor and starving of the world are also so because they've
'maturely consented' to it, for the pleasure of it!]

[Alex May]

> The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> worker' freely choosing this line of work?

No proof to the contrary. You don't even know if it's a woman. You don't
know if the guy in the bear suit is paying. You don't know if it's sex
between family members... All speculation.

To dress it up as a victim/abuser relationship when there's no evidence is
as valid as all the other speculations I've made.

Alexis

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
> >  The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> >  worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> No proof to the contrary. You don't even know if it's a woman.

What difference would that make?


>You don't
> know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.

Not paying is more ... 'noble'?

>You don't know if it's sex
> between family members... All speculation.

Would that be more expensive?

[I think I recall from the novel that the guy in the dress suit is the
hotel's proprietor [Derwent?], who, of course, as a model upright
citizen, as a member of the elite ruling class, is a very fair and
consensual fellow. Orders from the House].

>
> To dress it up as a victim/abuser relationship when there's no evidence is
> as valid as all the other speculations I've made.

Only if you've been asleep throughout the entire film, but you're
entitled to believe that they're really just innocently preparing to
give Danny a surprise "Happy Birthday, Danneeeeee!", like all happy
happy happy Familieeeees.

[Harry Bailey]

Addendum

On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
> >  The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> >  worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> You don't know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.

The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of getting to
suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
multiply!

[blue]

Harry Bailey wrote:
> Addendum
>
> On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>>> The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
>>> worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>>
>>You don't know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
>
> The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of getting to
> suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> multiply!


You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 7, 5:51 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> > Addendum
>
> > On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> >>> worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> >>You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> > The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> > proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> > money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> > suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> > Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> > his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> > multiply!
>
> You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
> adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
> into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.- Hide quoted text -
>

Agreed. Kind of naive to assume everyone (including fictional
characters) has similar values to yourself.

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 7, 1:47 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed.  Kind of naive to assume everyone (including fictional
> characters) has similar values to yourself.-

Whatever are you blabbering about, child?

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 7, 11:52 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 1:47 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Agreed.  Kind of naive to assume everyone (including fictional
> > characters) has similar values to yourself.-
>
> Whatever are you blabbering about, child?

If you're too useless to understand, why use the condescending
approach?

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 9, 1:09 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 11:52 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 1:47 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Agreed.  Kind of naive to assume everyone (including fictional
> > > characters) has similar values to yourself.-
>
> > Whatever are you blabbering about, child?
>
> If you're too useless to understand, why use the condescending
> approach?

Because you're an idiot and a troll ... and, funnily enough, an eegit
with 'similar values' to a certain 'fictional character'. Fuck off or
contribute something of substance.

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 9, 10:51 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 1:09 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 7, 11:52 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 7, 1:47 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Agreed.  Kind of naive to assume everyone (including fictional
> > > > characters) has similar values to yourself.-
>
> > > Whatever are you blabbering about, child?
>
> > If you're too useless to understand, why use the condescending
> > approach?
>
> Because you're an idiot and a troll ... and, funnily enough, an eegit
> with 'similar values' to a certain 'fictional character'. Fuck off or
> contribute something of substance.

Hilarious - the substance of your immature rant proves the exact
opposite of what you're trying to assert. What a complete fuckwit! Ha
ha ha

[kelpzoidzl]

ALERT---ALERT Contact with the Furry community Imminent.


Mundane: "I hate to ask, but could you remove your ears, please? I
can't see the film."

Furry: "OMG remove my ears! They are a part of me, you insensitive
asshole! FURSECUTION!"


dc

[kelpzoidzl]

Would you Kindly remove your ears.



dc

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 9, 5:04 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> ALERT---ALERT Contact with the Furry community Imminent.
>
> Mundane: "I hate to ask, but could you remove your ears, please? I
> can't see the film."
>
> Furry: "OMG remove my ears! They are a part of me, you insensitive
> asshole! FURSECUTION!"
>
> dc

Chuckle (chuckle) [though I'm sure this pompous geezer is more
concerned about the latest cricket results and rugby tackles, to judge
from his thousands of usenet posts on such token effluvia. Maybe he
was upset about Wendy using a baseball bat rather than a cricket one.
Only the 'best people' use cricket bats].

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 10, 6:56 am, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 5:04 pm, kelpzoidzl <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ALERT---ALERT Contact with the Furry community Imminent.
>
> > Mundane: "I hate to ask, but could you remove your ears, please? I
> > can't see the film."
>
> > Furry: "OMG remove my ears! They are a part of me, you insensitive
> > asshole! FURSECUTION!"
>
> > dc
>
> Chuckle (chuckle) [though I'm sure this pompous geezer is more
> concerned about the latest cricket results and rugby tackles, to judge
> from his thousands of usenet posts on such token effluvia. Maybe he
> was upset about Wendy using a baseball bat rather than a cricket one.
> Only the 'best people' use cricket bats].

Losers may as well amuse themselves if no one else gives a shit, hey..

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> > Addendum
>
> > On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> >>> worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> >>You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> > The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> > proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> > money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> > suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> > Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> > his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> > multiply!
>
> You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
> adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
> into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-

YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.

So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
prostitution.

[the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
utterly breadthtaking]

[blue]

Harry Bailey wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>>
>>>Addendum
>>
>>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
>>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>>
>>>>You don't know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>>
>>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
>>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
>>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of getting to
>>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
>>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
>>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
>>>multiply!
>>
>>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
>>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
>>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>
>
> YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
> sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
> from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
> worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
> call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
> to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
> pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
> legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
> consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>
> So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
> sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
> some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
> prostitution.
>
> [the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
> utterly breadthtaking]


Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?

If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.

[MP]

On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> >>>Addendum
>
> >>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> >>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> >>>>You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> >>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> >>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> >>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> >>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> >>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> >>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> >>>multiply!
>
> >>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
> >>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
> >>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>
> > YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
> > sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
> > from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
> > worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
> > call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
> > to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
> > pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
> > legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
> > consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>
> > So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
> > sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
> > some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
> > prostitution.
>
> > [the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
> > utterly breadthtaking]
>
> Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
> I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
> to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
> trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?
>
> If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
> might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
> The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi again.

By "better" you mean "obvious". Yes there are more obvious ways of
showing abuse, but remember we're talking about a director who hints
at genocide through a simple can of Calumet Baking Powder. Kubrick
likes to imply meaning through difference. My point was that perhaps
this scene at the end of the film mirrors Danny's scene at the
beginning of the film, and from this mirroring we derive the meaning.

Also notice the way Kubrick arranges the three figures and positions
his camera in each case. In both scenes Wendy is isolated and looking
toward the two figures.

Beginning of the film: Wendy looks on as Danny lies on bear whilst
covering crotch.

End of the film: Wendy looks on as a Bear tends to Derwent's crotch.

[blue]

MP wrote:

> On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>>
>>>>>Addendum
>>
>>>>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
>>>>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>>
>>>>>>You don't know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>>
>>>>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
>>>>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
>>>>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of getting to
>>>>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
>>>>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
>>>>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
>>>>>multiply!
>>
>>>>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
>>>>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
>>>>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>>
>>>YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
>>>sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
>>>from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
>>>worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
>>>call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
>>>to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
>>>pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
>>>legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
>>>consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>>
>>>So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
>>>sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
>>>some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
>>>prostitution.
>>
>>>[the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
>>>utterly breadthtaking]
>>
>>Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
>>I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
>>to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
>>trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?
>>
>>If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
>>might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
>>The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Hi again.
>
> By "better" you mean "obvious". Yes there are more obvious ways of
> showing abuse, but remember we're talking about a director who hints
> at genocide through a simple can of Calumet Baking Powder. Kubrick
> likes to imply meaning through difference. My point was that perhaps
> this scene at the end of the film mirrors Danny's scene at the
> beginning of the film, and from this mirroring we derive the meaning.
>
> Also notice the way Kubrick arranges the three figures and positions
> his camera in each case. In both scenes Wendy is isolated and looking
> toward the two figures.
>
> Beginning of the film: Wendy looks on as Danny lies on bear whilst
> covering crotch.
>
> End of the film: Wendy looks on as a Bear tends to Derwent's crotch.
>

I'm actually quite interested in your unique opinon of the film and have
actually noticed the bear on the pillow before and wondered about it.
What I'm not so interested in is the facist defense of such an opinion
(not by you I might add).
We don't actually know what Kubrick's intent was, and as somebody who
has less sexual hang up's than most I don't really see much significance
in where somebody's hands are when they have their underwear on (I mean
this sincerley by the way).

I always thought that the bear had more to do with the minotaur and the
more obvious man/beast parallels that the story contains. Remember that
the first scene with the doctor was omitted from the european cut (along
with the ending with Ulman) and if the blowjob scene was only there to
reference those it would make little sense.

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 12, 12:02 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
> MP wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> >>>On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> >>>>>Addendum
>
> >>>>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> >>>>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> >>>>>>You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> >>>>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> >>>>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> >>>>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> >>>>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> >>>>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> >>>>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> >>>>>multiply!
>
> >>>>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
> >>>>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
> >>>>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>
> >>>YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
> >>>sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
> >>>from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
> >>>worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
> >>>call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
> >>>to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
> >>>pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
> >>>legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
> >>>consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>
> >>>So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
> >>>sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
> >>>some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
> >>>prostitution.
>
> >>>[the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
> >>>utterly breadthtaking]
>
> >>Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
> >>I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
> >>to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
> >>trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?
>
> >>If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
> >>might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
> >>The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi again.
>
> > By "better" you mean "obvious". Yes there are more obvious ways of
> > showing abuse, but remember we're talking about a director who hints
> > at genocide through a simple can of Calumet Baking Powder. Kubrick
> > likes to imply meaning through difference. My point was that perhaps
> > this scene at the end of the film mirrors Danny's scene at the
> > beginning of the film, and from this mirroring we derive the meaning.
>
> > Also notice the way Kubrick arranges the three figures and positions
> > his camera in each case. In both scenes Wendy is isolated and looking
> > toward the two figures.
>
> > Beginning of the film: Wendy looks on as Danny lies on bear whilst
> > covering crotch.
>
> > End of the film: Wendy looks on as a Bear tends to Derwent's crotch.
>
> I'm actually quite interested in your unique opinon of the film and have
> actually noticed the bear on the pillow before and wondered about it.
> What I'm not so interested in is the facist defense of such an opinion

It is not an 'opinion'.

Furthermore, your naive aestheticization of the political, your
attempt to reduce scenes in the film to mere titillating spectacle, to
a 'pleasurable' experience, is precisely what is Fascist.

> (not by you I might add).
> We don't actually know what Kubrick's intent was

An analysis of any film is not contingent on ascertaining the
director's 'intent' (and, in the absence of anyone having privileged
access to the inner workings of Kubrick's mind, or anyone else's mind,
is meaningless); such statements are always an attempt to shut down,
to censor serious discussion.

>, and as somebody who
> has less sexual hang up's than most

What does this mean, exactly? It is a sentiment usually expressed by
those with no understanding of sexuality, who fantasize that it has no
bearing on the world, on the social, on the political, on the
psychoanalytic, that it is all just 'fun'. Indeed, it is a view most
often expressed by those who are most enslaved to it, who abjectly
conform to, and most at the mercy of, the hedonistic threadmill.

We're analyzing scenes in a film and their relation to the central
themes of that film (structures of power and abuse under patriarchy),
not your supposed sexual proclivities or permissiveness (concerning
which you are revealing yourself to be hysterically defensive and
egotistical).

[blue]

Harry Bailey wrote:

> On Aug 12, 12:02 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>MP wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Addendum
>>
>>>>>>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
>>>>>>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>>
>>>>>>>>You don't know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>>
>>>>>>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
>>>>>>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
>>>>>>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of getting to
>>>>>>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
>>>>>>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
>>>>>>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
>>>>>>>multiply!
>>
>>>>>>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
>>>>>>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
>>>>>>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>>
>>>>>YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
>>>>>sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
>>>>
>>>>>from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
>>>>
>>>>>worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
>>>>>call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
>>>>>to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
>>>>>pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
>>>>>legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
>>>>>consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>>
>>>>>So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
>>>>>sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
>>>>>some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
>>>>>prostitution.
>>
>>>>>[the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
>>>>>utterly breadthtaking]
>>
>>>>Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
>>>>I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
>>>>to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
>>>>trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?
>>
>>>>If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
>>>>might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
>>>>The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>Hi again.
>>
>>>By "better" you mean "obvious". Yes there are more obvious ways of
>>>showing abuse, but remember we're talking about a director who hints
>>>at genocide through a simple can of Calumet Baking Powder. Kubrick
>>>likes to imply meaning through difference. My point was that perhaps
>>>this scene at the end of the film mirrors Danny's scene at the
>>>beginning of the film, and from this mirroring we derive the meaning.
>>
>>>Also notice the way Kubrick arranges the three figures and positions
>>>his camera in each case. In both scenes Wendy is isolated and looking
>>>toward the two figures.
>>
>>>Beginning of the film: Wendy looks on as Danny lies on bear whilst
>>>covering crotch.
>>
>>>End of the film: Wendy looks on as a Bear tends to Derwent's crotch.
>>
>>I'm actually quite interested in your unique opinon of the film and have
>>actually noticed the bear on the pillow before and wondered about it.
>>What I'm not so interested in is the facist defense of such an opinion
>
>
> It is not an 'opinion'.
>
> Furthermore, your naive aestheticization of the political, your
> attempt to reduce scenes in the film to mere titillating spectacle, to
> a 'pleasurable' experience, is precisely what is Fascist.

I never said it was titilating or pleasurable. You inferred that. I
wonder why?

>
>
>>(not by you I might add).
>>We don't actually know what Kubrick's intent was
>
>
> An analysis of any film is not contingent on ascertaining the
> director's 'intent' (and, in the absence of anyone having privileged
> access to the inner workings of Kubrick's mind, or anyone else's mind,
> is meaningless); such statements are always an attempt to shut down,
> to censor serious discussion.

Or 'we don't know what Kubrick's intent was' so lets open up discussion
and not listen to Harry ranting in the corner again. Notice how I was
polite to him and not to you? These things are only 'always' used (from
your perception) because it's aimed at you. You tend to monolpolise
topics in this group and allow little room for debate, just the
megaphone of your opinions.
>
>
>>, and as somebody who
>>has less sexual hang up's than most
>
>
> What does this mean, exactly? It is a sentiment usually expressed by
> those with no understanding of sexuality, who fantasize that it has no
> bearing on the world, on the social, on the political, on the
> psychoanalytic, that it is all just 'fun'. Indeed, it is a view most
> often expressed by those who are most enslaved to it, who abjectly
> conform to, and most at the mercy of, the hedonistic threadmill.
>
> We're analyzing scenes in a film and their relation to the central
> themes of that film (structures of power and abuse under patriarchy),
> not your supposed sexual proclivities or permissiveness (concerning
> which you are revealing yourself to be hysterically defensive and
> egotistical).
>

Oh just be quiet. Why does everything always have to be a conflict with
you?
Hysterically defensive and egotistiocal? Do you even proof read your own
posts? I wonder why people react so strongly to you around here? Could
it be?? Naah.

Oh, and yes I admit, I'm quite 'enslaved' by sex. Unfortunately at the
time (before artificial insemination) my parents found it was absolutely
nescessary to have intercourse to conceive.
I'm now old and unlucky enough to find the whole business fun, so am
doomed like my parents and a few other people I know to carry on doing
the same old in out. It casues a few problems but what the hell, 6
billion and counting.

[Harry Bailey]

On Aug 12, 9:48 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:

<snipped>

You and fellow troll Spamtwit have contributed absolutely nothing to
this discussion of The Shining (or any other discussion hereabouts),
have merely attempted to undermine such discussion with the
predictable run of raving ad hominems, petty-minded verbal abuse, smug
school-boy point-scoring, and personalized delirium. Your
'intervention' in this thread was purely for purposes of hurling
unwarranted insult, not to seriously engage with the topics being
discussed, but to provoke, and nothing else. You should know by now
that I don't take kindly to such destructive trolling, as it is what
ruins newsgroups and forums, including this one, which has now less
than a handfull of genuine contributors.

[Why do you post here? These few recent flames are your only
'contributions' here in months, which suggests you just come here to
jerk off, like your Spamtwit fellow traveller, the latter who has
never posted here before and who has all the hallmarks of the textbook
troll. You are both best permanently ignored forthwith ...

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 12, 8:41 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 9:48 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> You and fellow troll Spamtwit have contributed absolutely nothing to
> this discussion of The Shining (or any other discussion hereabouts),
> have merely attempted to undermine such discussion with the
> predictable run of raving ad hominems, petty-minded verbal abuse, smug
> school-boy point-scoring, and personalized delirium. Your
> 'intervention' in this thread was purely for purposes of hurling
> unwarranted insult, not to seriously engage with the topics being
> discussed, but to provoke, and nothing else. You should know by now
> that I don't take kindly to such destructive trolling, as it is what
> ruins newsgroups and forums, including this one, which has now less
> than a handfull of genuine contributors.
>
> [Why do you post here? These few recent flames are your only
> 'contributions' here in months, which suggests you just come here to
> jerk off, like your Spamtwit fellow traveller, the latter who has
> never posted here before and who has all the hallmarks of the textbook
> troll. You are both best permanently ignored forthwith ...

Well done mate, castigate newbies and accuse them of doing exactly
what you have just tried to do (demean and devalue their personal
opinion).

If disagreeing with your ridiculous view that everyone shares the same
sexual values is not contributing, fair enough. It's a logical point
though, get over it... just because you post here constantly doesn't
make you superior in any way. When you rant and rave like this, it's
doutful anyone gives a shit what you write anyway

[kelpzoidzl]

On Aug 12, 4:18 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 8:41 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 9:48 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > You and fellow troll Spamtwit have contributed absolutely nothing to
> > this discussion of The Shining (or any other discussion hereabouts),
> > have merely attempted to undermine such discussion with the
> > predictable run of raving ad hominems, petty-minded verbal abuse, smug
> > school-boy point-scoring, and personalized delirium. Your
> > 'intervention' in this thread was purely for purposes of hurling
> > unwarranted insult, not to seriously engage with the topics being
> > discussed, but to provoke, and nothing else. You should know by now
> > that I don't take kindly to such destructive trolling, as it is what
> > ruins newsgroups and forums, including this one, which has now less
> > than a handfull of genuine contributors.
>
> > [Why do you post here? These few recent flames are your only
> > 'contributions' here in months, which suggests you just come here to
> > jerk off, like your Spamtwit fellow traveller, the latter who has
> > never posted here before and who has all the hallmarks of the textbook
> > troll. You are both best permanently ignored forthwith ...
>
> Well done mate, castigate newbies and accuse them of doing exactly
> what you have just tried to do (demean and devalue their personal
> opinion).
>
> If disagreeing with your ridiculous view that everyone shares the same
> sexual values is not contributing, fair enough.  It's a logical point
> though, get over it... just because you post here constantly doesn't
> make you superior in any way.  When you rant and rave like this, it's
> doutful anyone gives a shit what you write anyway- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

For some bizarre reason you and Blue took what Harry had said
personally. If you go back and read Harry's post which was attacked,
it was not even inflammatory it was just a light hearted post in
answer to Alex's post agreeing that it's all speculation as to the
various possible ramifications of the meaning of it. As another
reader I was puzzled by Blue's remark and yours, could only be
described as "off the wall," as though you were having some other
conversation entirely and picked a Ng at random to troll something..

What exactly are either of you defending? The discussion was about
The Shining and the dog/bear suit blow job scene, whihc is open to all
kinds of possible interpretations.


The post in question which was attacked:


On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:



> > The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> > worker' freely choosing this line of work?

> You don't know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.



The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of getting to
suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the
Overlook's
Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and
Ullman,
his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
multiply! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Sounds like a mild joke about the absurd possibility that the bear/
dogman was paying the overlook owners.

Now how in the world does this become personal?

Enquiring minds want to know?


dc

[Alex May]

> What exactly are either of you defending? The discussion was about
> The Shining and the dog/bear suit blow job scene, whihc is open to all
> kinds of possible interpretations.
>
>
> The post in question which was attacked:
>
>
> On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
>>> worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
>> You don't know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
>
>
> The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of getting to
> suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the
> Overlook's
> Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and
> Ullman,
> his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> multiply! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Sounds like a mild joke about the absurd possibility that the bear/
> dogman was paying the overlook owners.
>
> Now how in the world does this become personal?
>
> Enquiring minds want to know?


Well... Here's the reason why it becomes personal. Harry clearly says 'Only
if you've been asleep throughout the entire film...' If you dismiss
somebody's opinion on a subject with the above line, then it's understood
that you mean offence together with that dismissal. Some of us saw it that
way, including myself. Others not. Was that the case Harry? (treading
eggshells here folks!!)

(I wrote:)
> To dress it up as a victim/abuser relationship when there's no evidence is
> as valid as all the other speculations I've made.

(Harry replied:)
Only if you've been asleep throughout the entire film, but you're
entitled to believe that they're really just innocently preparing to
give Danny a surprise "Happy Birthday, Danneeeeee!", like all happy
happy happy Familieeeees.

[MP]

> Well... Here's the reason why it becomes personal. Harry clearly says 'Only
> if you've been asleep throughout the entire film...'  If you dismiss
> somebody's opinion on a subject with the above line, then it's understood
> that you mean offence together with that dismissal. Some of us saw it that
> way, including myself. Others not.

It's interesting that you use the word "dismissal". We're dismissing
each other's interpretations (nothing wrong with that), and yet "The
Shining" itself is about dismissal. The film acknowledges that it will
be dismissed, overlooked and misunderstood.

The film ends with the song, "Midnight, the stars and you", the lyrics
"I've known my whole life through, I'll be remembering you whatever I
do" contrasting with the sound-effect of people vacating a theatre.
The credits roll and Kubrick simultaneously encourages us to remember,
whilst acknowledging that we won’t. That we'll walk away instead,
shuffling off into the night.

[Alex May]

in article
cbd9f3b4-c185-4a1f-978a-***@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, MP at
***@hotmail.com wrote on 12/08/2008 20:34:

>
>> Well... Here's the reason why it becomes personal. Harry clearly says 'Only
>> if you've been asleep throughout the entire film...'  If you dismiss
>> somebody's opinion on a subject with the above line, then it's understood
>> that you mean offence together with that dismissal. Some of us saw it that
>> way, including myself. Others not.
>
> It's interesting that you use the word "dismissal". We're dismissing
> each other's interpretations (nothing wrong with that), and yet "The
> Shining" itself is about dismissal. The film acknowledges that it will
> be dismissed, overlooked and misunderstood.
>
> The film ends with the song, "Midnight, the stars and you", the lyrics
> "I've known my whole life through, I'll be remembering you whatever I
> do" contrasting with the sound-effect of people vacating a theatre.
> The credits roll and Kubrick simultaneously encourages us to remember,
> whilst acknowledging that we won¹t. That we'll walk away instead,
> shuffling off into the night.

Good call! Dismissal in death. That's what we do when we go to a funeral.

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 13, 5:34 am, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well... Here's the reason why it becomes personal. Harry clearly says 'Only
> > if you've been asleep throughout the entire film...'  If you dismiss
> > somebody's opinion on a subject with the above line, then it's understood
> > that you mean offence together with that dismissal. Some of us saw it that
> > way, including myself. Others not.
>
> It's interesting that you use the word "dismissal". We're dismissing
> each other's interpretations (nothing wrong with that), and yet "The
> Shining" itself is about dismissal. The film acknowledges that it will
> be dismissed, overlooked and misunderstood.

Interesting take, but almost thirty years on we are pulling it to
pieces. Is that a dismissal?

[kelpzoidzl]

On Aug 12, 12:34 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well... Here's the reason why it becomes personal. Harry clearly says 'Only
> > if you've been asleep throughout the entire film...'  If you dismiss
> > somebody's opinion on a subject with the above line, then it's understood
> > that you mean offence together with that dismissal. Some of us saw it that
> > way, including myself. Others not.
>
> It's interesting that you use the word "dismissal". We're dismissing
> each other's interpretations (nothing wrong with that), and yet "The
> Shining" itself is about dismissal. The film acknowledges that it will
> be dismissed, overlooked and misunderstood.
>
> The film ends with the song, "Midnight, the stars and you", the lyrics
> "I've known my whole life through, I'll be remembering you whatever I
> do" contrasting with the sound-effect of people vacating a theatre.
> The credits roll and Kubrick simultaneously encourages us to remember,
> whilst acknowledging that we won’t. That we'll walk away instead,
> shuffling off into the night.


That is what happens in the Overlook. But we can overlook that too.

dc

[kelpzoidzl]

On Aug 12, 11:38 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
> > What exactly are either of you defending?  The discussion was about
> > The Shining and the dog/bear suit blow job scene, whihc is open to all
> > kinds of possible interpretations.
>
> > The post in question which was attacked:
>
> > On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> >>>  The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> >>>  worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> >> You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> > The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> > proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> > money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> > suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the
> > Overlook's
> > Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and
> > Ullman,
> > his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> > multiply! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> > Sounds like a mild joke about the absurd possibility that the bear/
> > dogman was paying the overlook owners.
>
> > Now how in the world does this become personal?
>
> > Enquiring minds want to know?
>
> Well... Here's the reason why it becomes personal. Harry clearly says 'Only
> if you've been asleep throughout the entire film...'  If you dismiss
> somebody's opinion on a subject with the above line, then it's understood
> that you mean offence together with that dismissal. Some of us saw it that
> way, including myself. Others not. Was that the case Harry? (treading
> eggshells here folks!!)


I didn't read that as a heavy put down and this wasn't the post quoted
by Blue or Spanditt, with what I thought were the off the wall
remarks. I myself hadn't made these connections and had looked at this
scene as hotel guests partaking in fetishes, but I still felt the
scene was entirely malevolent in keeping with the whole film. I would
have to agree it wasn't just a scene of , as Harry joked, "really just
innocently preparing to give Danny a surprise "Happy Birthday,
Danneeeeee!", like all happy happy happy Familieeeees."

dc





> (I wrote:)
> > To dress it up as a victim/abuser relationship when there's no evidence is
> > as valid as all the other speculations I've made.
>
> (Harry replied:)
> Only if you've been asleep throughout the entire film, but you're
> entitled to believe that they're really just innocently preparing to
> give Danny a surprise "Happy Birthday, Danneeeeee!", like all happy
> happy happy Familieeeees.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 12, 5:02 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 12:02 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > MP wrote:
> > > On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > >>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > >>>On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Addendum
>
> > >>>>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> > >>>>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> > >>>>>>You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> > >>>>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> > >>>>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> > >>>>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> > >>>>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> > >>>>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> > >>>>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> > >>>>>multiply!
>
> > >>>>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
> > >>>>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
> > >>>>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>
> > >>>YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
> > >>>sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
> > >>>from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
> > >>>worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
> > >>>call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
> > >>>to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
> > >>>pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
> > >>>legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
> > >>>consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>
> > >>>So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
> > >>>sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
> > >>>some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
> > >>>prostitution.
>
> > >>>[the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
> > >>>utterly breadthtaking]
>
> > >>Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
> > >>I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
> > >>to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
> > >>trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?
>
> > >>If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
> > >>might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
> > >>The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > > Hi again.
>
> > > By "better" you mean "obvious". Yes there are more obvious ways of
> > > showing abuse, but remember we're talking about a director who hints
> > > at genocide through a simple can of Calumet Baking Powder. Kubrick
> > > likes to imply meaning through difference. My point was that perhaps
> > > this scene at the end of the film mirrors Danny's scene at the
> > > beginning of the film, and from this mirroring we derive the meaning.
>
> > > Also notice the way Kubrick arranges the three figures and positions
> > > his camera in each case. In both scenes Wendy is isolated and looking
> > > toward the two figures.
>
> > > Beginning of the film: Wendy looks on as Danny lies on bear whilst
> > > covering crotch.
>
> > > End of the film: Wendy looks on as a Bear tends to Derwent's crotch.
>
> > I'm actually quite interested in your unique opinon of the film and have
> > actually noticed the bear on the pillow before and wondered about it.
> > What I'm not so interested in is the facist defense of such an opinion
>
> It is not an 'opinion'.
>
> Furthermore, your naive aestheticization of the political, your
> attempt to reduce scenes in the film to mere titillating spectacle, to
> a 'pleasurable' experience, is precisely what is Fascist.
>
> > (not by you I might add).
> > We don't actually know what Kubrick's intent was
>
> An analysis of any film is not contingent on ascertaining the
> director's 'intent' (and, in the absence of anyone having privileged
> access to the inner workings of Kubrick's mind, or anyone else's mind,
> is meaningless); such statements are always an attempt to shut down,
> to censor serious discussion.
>
> >, and as somebody who
> > has less sexual hang up's than most
>
> What does this mean, exactly? It is a sentiment usually expressed by
> those with no understanding of sexuality, who fantasize that it has no
> bearing on the world, on the social, on the political, on the
> psychoanalytic, that it is all just 'fun'. Indeed, it is a view most
> often expressed by those who are most enslaved to it, who abjectly
> conform to, and most at the mercy of, the hedonistic threadmill.
>
> We're analyzing scenes in a film and their relation to the central
> themes of that film (structures of power and abuse under patriarchy),
> not your supposed sexual proclivities or permissiveness (concerning
> which you are revealing yourself to be hysterically defensive and
> egotistical).- Hide quoted text -
>

Harry, you truly are a complete fruit loop. Your attempts to gain some
kind of self-perceived intellectual upper-hand basically show you to
be someone who isn't satisfied with his personal social life, as it
has to be highly unlikely that you would bother putting down harmless,
well-intended people who don't know you on the internet if you had
friends that could fill that need of yours socially. Your opinion is
just that... an expression of one (problematic) individual's
perception of the issues posed in the film you're discussing, and no
more. Men are only men when they can admit that there's a chance they
could be wrong. You're just a big kid pretending to know it all,
which makes you a fuckwit.

[ichorwhip]

On Aug 12, 4:08 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 5:02 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 12:02 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > MP wrote:
> > > > On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > > >>>On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>Addendum
>
> > > >>>>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> > > >>>>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> > > >>>>>>You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> > > >>>>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> > > >>>>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> > > >>>>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> > > >>>>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> > > >>>>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> > > >>>>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> > > >>>>>multiply!
>
> > > >>>>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
> > > >>>>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
> > > >>>>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>
> > > >>>YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
> > > >>>sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
> > > >>>from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
> > > >>>worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
> > > >>>call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
> > > >>>to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
> > > >>>pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
> > > >>>legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
> > > >>>consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>
> > > >>>So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
> > > >>>sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
> > > >>>some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
> > > >>>prostitution.
>
> > > >>>[the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
> > > >>>utterly breadthtaking]
>
> > > >>Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
> > > >>I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
> > > >>to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
> > > >>trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?
>
> > > >>If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
> > > >>might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
> > > >>The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Hi again.
>
> > > > By "better" you mean "obvious". Yes there are more obvious ways of
> > > > showing abuse, but remember we're talking about a director who hints
> > > > at genocide through a simple can of Calumet Baking Powder. Kubrick
> > > > likes to imply meaning through difference. My point was that perhaps
> > > > this scene at the end of the film mirrors Danny's scene at the
> > > > beginning of the film, and from this mirroring we derive the meaning.
>
> > > > Also notice the way Kubrick arranges the three figures and positions
> > > > his camera in each case. In both scenes Wendy is isolated and looking
> > > > toward the two figures.
>
> > > > Beginning of the film: Wendy looks on as Danny lies on bear whilst
> > > > covering crotch.
>
> > > > End of the film: Wendy looks on as a Bear tends to Derwent's crotch.
>
> > > I'm actually quite interested in your unique opinon of the film and have
> > > actually noticed the bear on the pillow before and wondered about it.
> > > What I'm not so interested in is the facist defense of such an opinion
>
> > It is not an 'opinion'.
>
> > Furthermore, your naive aestheticization of the political, your
> > attempt to reduce scenes in the film to mere titillating spectacle, to
> > a 'pleasurable' experience, is precisely what is Fascist.
>
> > > (not by you I might add).
> > > We don't actually know what Kubrick's intent was
>
> > An analysis of any film is not contingent on ascertaining the
> > director's 'intent' (and, in the absence of anyone having privileged
> > access to the inner workings of Kubrick's mind, or anyone else's mind,
> > is meaningless); such statements are always an attempt to shut down,
> > to censor serious discussion.
>
> > >, and as somebody who
> > > has less sexual hang up's than most
>
> > What does this mean, exactly? It is a sentiment usually expressed by
> > those with no understanding of sexuality, who fantasize that it has no
> > bearing on the world, on the social, on the political, on the
> > psychoanalytic, that it is all just 'fun'. Indeed, it is a view most
> > often expressed by those who are most enslaved to it, who abjectly
> > conform to, and most at the mercy of, the hedonistic threadmill.
>
> > We're analyzing scenes in a film and their relation to the central
> > themes of that film (structures of power and abuse under patriarchy),
> > not your supposed sexual proclivities or permissiveness (concerning
> > which you are revealing yourself to be hysterically defensive and
> > egotistical).- Hide quoted text -
>
> Harry, you truly are a complete fruit loop. Your attempts to gain some
> kind of self-perceived intellectual upper-hand basically show you to
> be someone who isn't satisfied with his personal social life, as it
> has to be highly unlikely that you would bother putting down harmless,
> well-intended people who don't know you on the internet if you had
> friends that could fill that need of yours socially.  Your opinion is
> just that... an expression of one (problematic) individual's
> perception of the issues posed in the film you're discussing, and no
> more.  Men are only men when they can admit that there's a chance they
> could be wrong.  You're just a big kid pretending to know it all,
> which makes you a fuckwit.

So you prove Harry is a fuckwit, by showing who a fuckwit really is
with this cheap psychological profile turned glib fart? I have
finally gotten to the bottom of this thread turned open, running, STD
shanker and have learned nothing further worthwhile about "BJ and the
Bear" let alone "The Shining."
It's become a farrago of sexual insecurities and/or perversities
accented by petty personal convictions and "professional" knowledge
that doesn't make a fuck. Even the interpretations of "what went
wrong here" are results of the derailure. I want my time back!

"What's the next thing you remember after you were brushing your
teeth?"
i
"piop"

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 14, 9:00 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 4:08 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 5:02 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 12:02 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > MP wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > > > >>>On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>>Addendum
>
> > > > >>>>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> > > > >>>>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> > > > >>>>>>You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> > > > >>>>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> > > > >>>>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> > > > >>>>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> > > > >>>>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> > > > >>>>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> > > > >>>>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> > > > >>>>>multiply!
>
> > > > >>>>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
> > > > >>>>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
> > > > >>>>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>
> > > > >>>YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
> > > > >>>sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
> > > > >>>from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
> > > > >>>worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
> > > > >>>call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
> > > > >>>to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
> > > > >>>pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
> > > > >>>legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
> > > > >>>consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>
> > > > >>>So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
> > > > >>>sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
> > > > >>>some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
> > > > >>>prostitution.
>
> > > > >>>[the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
> > > > >>>utterly breadthtaking]
>
> > > > >>Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
> > > > >>I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
> > > > >>to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
> > > > >>trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?
>
> > > > >>If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
> > > > >>might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
> > > > >>The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Hi again.
>
> > > > > By "better" you mean "obvious". Yes there are more obvious ways of
> > > > > showing abuse, but remember we're talking about a director who hints
> > > > > at genocide through a simple can of Calumet Baking Powder. Kubrick
> > > > > likes to imply meaning through difference. My point was that perhaps
> > > > > this scene at the end of the film mirrors Danny's scene at the
> > > > > beginning of the film, and from this mirroring we derive the meaning.
>
> > > > > Also notice the way Kubrick arranges the three figures and positions
> > > > > his camera in each case. In both scenes Wendy is isolated and looking
> > > > > toward the two figures.
>
> > > > > Beginning of the film: Wendy looks on as Danny lies on bear whilst
> > > > > covering crotch.
>
> > > > > End of the film: Wendy looks on as a Bear tends to Derwent's crotch.
>
> > > > I'm actually quite interested in your unique opinon of the film and have
> > > > actually noticed the bear on the pillow before and wondered about it.
> > > > What I'm not so interested in is the facist defense of such an opinion
>
> > > It is not an 'opinion'.
>
> > > Furthermore, your naive aestheticization of the political, your
> > > attempt to reduce scenes in the film to mere titillating spectacle, to
> > > a 'pleasurable' experience, is precisely what is Fascist.
>
> > > > (not by you I might add).
> > > > We don't actually know what Kubrick's intent was
>
> > > An analysis of any film is not contingent on ascertaining the
> > > director's 'intent' (and, in the absence of anyone having privileged
> > > access to the inner workings of Kubrick's mind, or anyone else's mind,
> > > is meaningless); such statements are always an attempt to shut down,
> > > to censor serious discussion.
>
> > > >, and as somebody who
> > > > has less sexual hang up's than most
>
> > > What does this mean, exactly? It is a sentiment usually expressed by
> > > those with no understanding of sexuality, who fantasize that it has no
> > > bearing on the world, on the social, on the political, on the
> > > psychoanalytic, that it is all just 'fun'. Indeed, it is a view most
> > > often expressed by those who are most enslaved to it, who abjectly
> > > conform to, and most at the mercy of, the hedonistic threadmill.
>
> > > We're analyzing scenes in a film and their relation to the central
> > > themes of that film (structures of power and abuse under patriarchy),
> > > not your supposed sexual proclivities or permissiveness (concerning
> > > which you are revealing yourself to be hysterically defensive and
> > > egotistical).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Harry, you truly are a complete fruit loop. Your attempts to gain some
> > kind of self-perceived intellectual upper-hand basically show you to
> > be someone who isn't satisfied with his personal social life, as it
> > has to be highly unlikely that you would bother putting down harmless,
> > well-intended people who don't know you on the internet if you had
> > friends that could fill that need of yours socially.  Your opinion is
> > just that... an expression of one (problematic) individual's
> > perception of the issues posed in the film you're discussing, and no
> > more.  Men are only men when they can admit that there's a chance they
> > could be wrong.  You're just a big kid pretending to know it all,
> > which makes you a fuckwit.
>
> So you prove Harry is a fuckwit, by showing who a fuckwit really is
> with this cheap psychological profile turned glib fart?  I have
> finally gotten to the bottom of this thread turned open, running, STD
> shanker and have learned nothing further worthwhile about "BJ and the
> Bear" let alone "The Shining."
> It's become a farrago of sexual insecurities and/or perversities
> accented by petty personal convictions and "professional" knowledge
> that doesn't make a fuck.  Even the interpretations of "what went
> wrong here" are results of the derailure.  I want my time back!

Point accepted, I just can't tolerate small-minded dismissals of fair
opinions - if you can't be open minded and accept that everyone has
different morals and values then... I just think you're really going
to struggle to ever have a reasoned discussion.

But for the record, what exactly is a glib fart?

In terms of the movie itself, i think the scene is pretty
insignificant. You don't know who the characters are by themselves
and they add very little to the story (just that everything in the
hotel is not right). For people who were struggling to get into the
film, this would make it look laughable, so maybe the film would have
been better off without it.

[ichorwhip]

On Aug 13, 7:20 pm, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 9:00 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 4:08 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 5:02 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 12, 12:02 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > MP wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>Addendum
>
> > > > > >>>>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> > > > > >>>>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> > > > > >>>>>>You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> > > > > >>>>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> > > > > >>>>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> > > > > >>>>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> > > > > >>>>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> > > > > >>>>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> > > > > >>>>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> > > > > >>>>>multiply!
>
> > > > > >>>>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
> > > > > >>>>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
> > > > > >>>>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>
> > > > > >>>YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
> > > > > >>>sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
> > > > > >>>from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
> > > > > >>>worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
> > > > > >>>call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
> > > > > >>>to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
> > > > > >>>pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
> > > > > >>>legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
> > > > > >>>consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>
> > > > > >>>So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
> > > > > >>>sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
> > > > > >>>some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
> > > > > >>>prostitution.
>
> > > > > >>>[the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
> > > > > >>>utterly breadthtaking]
>
> > > > > >>Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
> > > > > >>I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
> > > > > >>to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
> > > > > >>trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?
>
> > > > > >>If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
> > > > > >>might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
> > > > > >>The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Hi again.
>
> > > > > > By "better" you mean "obvious". Yes there are more obvious ways of
> > > > > > showing abuse, but remember we're talking about a director who hints
> > > > > > at genocide through a simple can of Calumet Baking Powder. Kubrick
> > > > > > likes to imply meaning through difference. My point was that perhaps
> > > > > > this scene at the end of the film mirrors Danny's scene at the
> > > > > > beginning of the film, and from this mirroring we derive the meaning.
>
> > > > > > Also notice the way Kubrick arranges the three figures and positions
> > > > > > his camera in each case. In both scenes Wendy is isolated and looking
> > > > > > toward the two figures.
>
> > > > > > Beginning of the film: Wendy looks on as Danny lies on bear whilst
> > > > > > covering crotch.
>
> > > > > > End of the film: Wendy looks on as a Bear tends to Derwent's crotch.
>
> > > > > I'm actually quite interested in your unique opinon of the film and have
> > > > > actually noticed the bear on the pillow before and wondered about it.
> > > > > What I'm not so interested in is the facist defense of such an opinion
>
> > > > It is not an 'opinion'.
>
> > > > Furthermore, your naive aestheticization of the political, your
> > > > attempt to reduce scenes in the film to mere titillating spectacle, to
> > > > a 'pleasurable' experience, is precisely what is Fascist.
>
> > > > > (not by you I might add).
> > > > > We don't actually know what Kubrick's intent was
>
> > > > An analysis of any film is not contingent on ascertaining the
> > > > director's 'intent' (and, in the absence of anyone having privileged
> > > > access to the inner workings of Kubrick's mind, or anyone else's mind,
> > > > is meaningless); such statements are always an attempt to shut down,
> > > > to censor serious discussion.
>
> > > > >, and as somebody who
> > > > > has less sexual hang up's than most
>
> > > > What does this mean, exactly? It is a sentiment usually expressed by
> > > > those with no understanding of sexuality, who fantasize that it has no
> > > > bearing on the world, on the social, on the political, on the
> > > > psychoanalytic, that it is all just 'fun'. Indeed, it is a view most
> > > > often expressed by those who are most enslaved to it, who abjectly
> > > > conform to, and most at the mercy of, the hedonistic threadmill.
>
> > > > We're analyzing scenes in a film and their relation to the central
> > > > themes of that film (structures of power and abuse under patriarchy),
> > > > not your supposed sexual proclivities or permissiveness (concerning
> > > > which you are revealing yourself to be hysterically defensive and
> > > > egotistical).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Harry, you truly are a complete fruit loop. Your attempts to gain some
> > > kind of self-perceived intellectual upper-hand basically show you to
> > > be someone who isn't satisfied with his personal social life, as it
> > > has to be highly unlikely that you would bother putting down harmless,
> > > well-intended people who don't know you on the internet if you had
> > > friends that could fill that need of yours socially.  Your opinion is
> > > just that... an expression of one (problematic) individual's
> > > perception of the issues posed in the film you're discussing, and no
> > > more.  Men are only men when they can admit that there's a chance they
> > > could be wrong.  You're just a big kid pretending to know it all,
> > > which makes you a fuckwit.
>
> > So you prove Harry is a fuckwit, by showing who a fuckwit really is
> > with this cheap psychological profile turned glib fart?  I have
> > finally gotten to the bottom of this thread turned open, running, STD
> > shanker and have learned nothing further worthwhile about "BJ and the
> > Bear" let alone "The Shining."
> > It's become a farrago of sexual insecurities and/or perversities
> > accented by petty personal convictions and "professional" knowledge
> > that doesn't make a fuck.  Even the interpretations of "what went
> > wrong here" are results of the derailure.  I want my time back!
>
> Point accepted, I just can't tolerate small-minded dismissals of fair
> opinions - if you can't be open minded and accept that everyone has
> different morals and values then... I just think you're really going
> to struggle to ever have a reasoned discussion.

All I can tell you is that that works both ways. I for one don't
think Harry was making a "small minded dismissal" when he scoffed at
the "idea" that the doggysuit sucker was being paid. What devolved
from that was utterly pointless.

> But for the record, what exactly is a glib fart?

An insincere turd? A disingenuous lunker log? An hypocritical bowl
splatter?

> In terms of the movie itself, i think the scene is pretty
> insignificant.

This is the first I've seen you actually contribute to the original
discussion.

> You don't know who the characters are by themselves
> and they add very little to the story (just that everything in the
> hotel is not right).

What about the Derwent connection from the novel? I usually dismiss
it myself, but there's that.

> For people who were struggling to get into the
> film, this would make it look laughable, so maybe the film would have
> been better off without it.

It was shocking to me the first time I saw it, but one thing I never
do with Kubrick is try to second guess his filmmaking decisions. He
left the action in there for some reason; he was far too exacting not
to have. Whether his intentions were as lofty as all the stuff that's
been thought of in this thread and elsewhere is unknown and by design
if you ask me. It is undeniable that there are links set out there in
the imagery and language of the film and among other Kubrick films as
well. Maybe that was the extent of Kubrick's intent: "I set out an
association, now you figure it out." He'd said as much in the past.

"It's origin and purpose still a total mystery."
i
"piop"

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 14, 12:09 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 13, 7:20 pm, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 9:00 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 4:08 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 12, 5:02 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 12, 12:02 am, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > MP wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 11, 2:22 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>On Aug 6, 8:51 pm, blue <***@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>>Harry Bailey wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>>>Addendum
>
> > > > > > >>>>>On Aug 6, 4:05 am, Alex May <***@talk21.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>The spectral bear guy is a 'sex
> > > > > > >>>>>>>worker' freely choosing this line of work?
>
> > > > > > >>>>>>You don't  know if the guy in the bear suit is paying.
>
> > > > > > >>>>>The guy in the BEAR SUIT is paying!!? Hilarious. The hotel's
> > > > > > >>>>>proprietor is running a 'little business' on the side by extracting
> > > > > > >>>>>money from bear-suited sex slaves for the privilege of  getting to
> > > > > > >>>>>suck his privileged cock? Times must be really hard for the Overlook's
> > > > > > >>>>>Overlookers/Owners. Or maybe the bear guy was given credit and Ullman,
> > > > > > >>>>>his grandson, is still stuck with the bill. The possibilities
> > > > > > >>>>>multiply!
>
> > > > > > >>>>You obviously know nothing about the sex trade or even what consenting
> > > > > > >>>>adults get up to in private. Strange you have the imagination to read
> > > > > > >>>>into the scene but not the imagination to speculate outside of the movie.-
>
> > > > > > >>>YOU know nothing about it, blue, and fuck off with your patronizing,
> > > > > > >>>sanctimonious, and sexist crap about 'consenting adults' [quite apart
> > > > > > >>>from the widely documented fact that 96% of all 'sex workers'
> > > > > > >>>worldwide in what in your chronic, myopic insularity you revealing
> > > > > > >>>call the 'sex trade' are bonded slaves, while most of the rest demand
> > > > > > >>>to be treated like human beings with decent working conditions and
> > > > > > >>>pay]: the film, among other things, is concerned with ABUSE, the
> > > > > > >>>legacy of abuse, the history of abuse. Stop trying to turn it into a
> > > > > > >>>consumer-commodified Disneyland for 'consenting' sex addicts.
>
> > > > > > >>>So put aside your Hustler mysogyny and go fuck your mother, blue. I'm
> > > > > > >>>sure you can arrange for her to 'consent' to it. Then. after getting
> > > > > > >>>some sex counselling, go and EDUCATE yourself about the history of
> > > > > > >>>prostitution.
>
> > > > > > >>>[the political, social and ideological ignorance on display here is
> > > > > > >>>utterly breadthtaking]
>
> > > > > > >>Er, right. Thanks for the outburst.
> > > > > > >>I was just pointing out that somewhere, somebody has dressed up and paid
> > > > > > >>to give oral sex. It's not such an outrageous conecpt is it? I wasn't
> > > > > > >>trying to 'turn it' into anything. Have you seen 'Fetishes' perhaps?
>
> > > > > > >>If Kubrick wanted to portray abuse during sex then I think there just
> > > > > > >>might be a better way of showing it. Domination maybe, but not abuse.
> > > > > > >>The couple involved seem more interested in Wendy than what they are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Hi again.
>
> > > > > > > By "better" you mean "obvious". Yes there are more obvious ways of
> > > > > > > showing abuse, but remember we're talking about a director who hints
> > > > > > > at genocide through a simple can of Calumet Baking Powder. Kubrick
> > > > > > > likes to imply meaning through difference. My point was that perhaps
> > > > > > > this scene at the end of the film mirrors Danny's scene at the
> > > > > > > beginning of the film, and from this mirroring we derive the meaning.
>
> > > > > > > Also notice the way Kubrick arranges the three figures and positions
> > > > > > > his camera in each case. In both scenes Wendy is isolated and looking
> > > > > > > toward the two figures.
>
> > > > > > > Beginning of the film: Wendy looks on as Danny lies on bear whilst
> > > > > > > covering crotch.
>
> > > > > > > End of the film: Wendy looks on as a Bear tends to Derwent's crotch.
>
> > > > > > I'm actually quite interested in your unique opinon of the film and have
> > > > > > actually noticed the bear on the pillow before and wondered about it.
> > > > > > What I'm not so interested in is the facist defense of such an opinion
>
> > > > > It is not an 'opinion'.
>
> > > > > Furthermore, your naive aestheticization of the political, your
> > > > > attempt to reduce scenes in the film to mere titillating spectacle, to
> > > > > a 'pleasurable' experience, is precisely what is Fascist.
>
> > > > > > (not by you I might add).
> > > > > > We don't actually know what Kubrick's intent was
>
> > > > > An analysis of any film is not contingent on ascertaining the
> > > > > director's 'intent' (and, in the absence of anyone having privileged
> > > > > access to the inner workings of Kubrick's mind, or anyone else's mind,
> > > > > is meaningless); such statements are always an attempt to shut down,
> > > > > to censor serious discussion.
>
> > > > > >, and as somebody who
> > > > > > has less sexual hang up's than most
>
> > > > > What does this mean, exactly? It is a sentiment usually expressed by
> > > > > those with no understanding of sexuality, who fantasize that it has no
> > > > > bearing on the world, on the social, on the political, on the
> > > > > psychoanalytic, that it is all just 'fun'. Indeed, it is a view most
> > > > > often expressed by those who are most enslaved to it, who abjectly
> > > > > conform to, and most at the mercy of, the hedonistic threadmill.
>
> > > > > We're analyzing scenes in a film and their relation to the central
> > > > > themes of that film (structures of power and abuse under patriarchy),
> > > > > not your supposed sexual proclivities or permissiveness (concerning
> > > > > which you are revealing yourself to be hysterically defensive and
> > > > > egotistical).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Harry, you truly are a complete fruit loop. Your attempts to gain some
> > > > kind of self-perceived intellectual upper-hand basically show you to
> > > > be someone who isn't satisfied with his personal social life, as it
> > > > has to be highly unlikely that you would bother putting down harmless,
> > > > well-intended people who don't know you on the internet if you had
> > > > friends that could fill that need of yours socially.  Your opinion is
> > > > just that... an expression of one (problematic) individual's
> > > > perception of the issues posed in the film you're discussing, and no
> > > > more.  Men are only men when they can admit that there's a chance they
> > > > could be wrong.  You're just a big kid pretending to know it all,
> > > > which makes you a fuckwit.
>
> > > So you prove Harry is a fuckwit, by showing who a fuckwit really is
> > > with this cheap psychological profile turned glib fart?  I have
> > > finally gotten to the bottom of this thread turned open, running, STD
> > > shanker and have learned nothing further worthwhile about "BJ and the
> > > Bear" let alone "The Shining."
> > > It's become a farrago of sexual insecurities and/or perversities
> > > accented by petty personal convictions and "professional" knowledge
> > > that doesn't make a fuck.  Even the interpretations of "what went
> > > wrong here" are results of the derailure.  I want my time back!
>
> > Point accepted, I just can't tolerate small-minded dismissals of fair
> > opinions - if you can't be open minded and accept that everyone has
> > different morals and values then... I just think you're really going
> > to struggle to ever have a reasoned discussion.
>
> All I can tell you is that that works both ways.  I for one don't
> think Harry was making a "small minded dismissal" when he scoffed at
> the "idea" that the doggysuit sucker was being paid.  What devolved
> from that was utterly pointless.
>
> > But for the record, what exactly is a glib fart?
>
> An insincere turd?  A disingenuous lunker log?  An hypocritical bowl
> splatter?
>
> > In terms of the movie itself, i think the scene is pretty
> > insignificant.
>
> This is the first I've seen you actually contribute to the original
> discussion.

That would be because it is my contribution. Very observant.
>
> > You don't know who the characters are by themselves
> > and they add very little to the story (just that everything in the
> > hotel is not right).
>
> What about the Derwent connection from the novel?  I usually dismiss
> it myself, but there's that.
>

I used the words 'the movie itself' to separate the movie from the
book - films shouldn't rely on supportive texts to provide extra
information that makes the film more filling. That's why LOTR is
long, boring and silly.

By itself, it was insignificant and irrelevant. To me, anyway... i
don't remember seeing any links to that behaviour in the movie, except
for the control theme that some people have been talking about, but
that is just deconstruction for the sake of it.

'Things that make you go Hmmmmm' - C&C Music Factory?

[ichorwhip]

On Aug 17, 12:50 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > > In terms of the movie itself, i think the scene is pretty
> > > insignificant.
>
> > This is the first I've seen you actually contribute to the original
> > discussion.
>
> That would be because it is my contribution.  Very observant.

It takes no smug awareness of my observance to see that you have next
to nil to offer here.

> > > You don't know who the characters are by themselves
> > > and they add very little to the story (just that everything in the
> > > hotel is not right).
>
> > What about the Derwent connection from the novel?  I usually dismiss
> > it myself, but there's that.
>
> I used the words 'the movie itself' to separate the movie from the
> book

Oh how unobservant of me....

> - films shouldn't rely on supportive texts to provide extra
> information that makes the film more filling.

I agree to a certain extent, but nevertheless the novel is the
original source material and deserves some miniscule consideration at
the very least if any detailed analysis of the film is to be
expected. Afterall Kubrick must have read it, right? I thought the
novel was crap myself, and I refuse to reread it, but that matters
nothing.

> That's why LOTR is
> long, boring and silly.

So you've actually read TLOTR and watched the movies? I think a case
could be made for what you're saying however severe and unfair I think
it might be, but I suspect this is just an off-the-cuff remark that
you can't well back up, not that it has anything at all to do with
what we're talking about.

> By itself, it was insignificant and irrelevant.  To me, anyway...

Ah, to you at least... A little humble rejoinder never hurt
anything. So do you think Kubrick just set it out there as some kind
of "scary" and perverse red herring? Or was he even aware that it made
it in to the film? Explain.

> i
> don't remember seeing any links to that behaviour in the movie, except
> for the control theme that some people have been talking about, but
> that is just deconstruction for the sake of it.

MP went to great pains to link "that behavior" to other scenes in the
movie, not that I necessarily agree with everything he was saying.
Didn't you read any of that? Afterall he's the one that started this
abortion of a thread. And as far as "deconstruction" goes why bother
to post here and discuss the movies of Kubrick at all? Should we just
say either "Yeah, I saw it, it was kewl" or "Yeah, it sucked, and I
want my two hours back" and leave it at that? Talk about boring and
silly. What is the purpose of this forum anyway?

> 'Things that make you go Hmmmmm' - C&C Music Factory?

So that's where Arsenio got that!

"My goddam soul, just a glass of beer."
i
"piop"

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 18, 9:13 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 12:50 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > > In terms of the movie itself, i think the scene is pretty
> > > > insignificant.
>
> > > This is the first I've seen you actually contribute to the original
> > > discussion.
>
> > That would be because it is my contribution.  Very observant.
>
> It takes no smug awareness of my observance to see that you have next
> to nil to offer here.
>
> > > > You don't know who the characters are by themselves
> > > > and they add very little to the story (just that everything in the
> > > > hotel is not right).
>
> > > What about the Derwent connection from the novel?  I usually dismiss
> > > it myself, but there's that.
>
> > I used the words 'the movie itself' to separate the movie from the
> > book
>
> Oh how unobservant of me....
>
> > - films shouldn't rely on supportive texts to provide extra
> > information that makes the film more filling.
>
> I agree to a certain extent, but nevertheless the novel is the
> original source material and deserves some miniscule consideration at
> the very least if any detailed analysis of the film is to be
> expected.  Afterall Kubrick must have read it, right?  I thought the
> novel was crap myself, and I refuse to reread it, but that matters
> nothing.
>
> > That's why LOTR is
> > long, boring and silly.
>
> So you've actually read TLOTR and watched the movies?  I think a case
> could be made for what you're saying however severe and unfair I think
> it might be, but I suspect this is just an off-the-cuff remark that
> you can't well back up, not that it has anything at all to do with
> what we're talking about.

Remember an opinion is only that. I don't need to back anything up,
only refer to my first watching of the first installment had me
falling to sleep half-way through. It is kind of relevant, because
you're suggesting that the texts these films are based upon should be
read in order to enjoy the film to the fullest. That is crap. Any
film-maker that relies on extra information is selling their film
short. A detailed analysis shouldn't go anywhere near the book, since
it's more than feasible that two story-tellers can tell the exact same
story, yet have conflicting morals and themes they believe are
prevalent.

>
> > By itself, it was insignificant and irrelevant.  To me, anyway...
>
> Ah, to you at least...  A little humble rejoinder never hurt
> anything.  So do you think Kubrick just set it out there as some kind
> of "scary" and perverse red herring? Or was he even aware that it made
> it in to the film?  Explain.

A perverse red herring, something for people to wonder 'what the hell
was that part apart'... who knows what is in Kubrick's head. I'm sure
we could think of a few other scenes from movies that are included for
nothing else except for a little shock value.

[ichorwhip]

On Aug 17, 8:01 pm, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 9:13 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 12:50 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > In terms of the movie itself, i think the scene is pretty
> > > > > insignificant.
>
> > > > This is the first I've seen you actually contribute to the original
> > > > discussion.
>
> > > That would be because it is my contribution.  Very observant.
>
> > It takes no smug awareness of my observance to see that you have next
> > to nil to offer here.
>
> > > > > You don't know who the characters are by themselves
> > > > > and they add very little to the story (just that everything in the
> > > > > hotel is not right).
>
> > > > What about the Derwent connection from the novel?  I usually dismiss
> > > > it myself, but there's that.
>
> > > I used the words 'the movie itself' to separate the movie from the
> > > book
>
> > Oh how unobservant of me....
>
> > > - films shouldn't rely on supportive texts to provide extra
> > > information that makes the film more filling.
>
> > I agree to a certain extent, but nevertheless the novel is the
> > original source material and deserves some miniscule consideration at
> > the very least if any detailed analysis of the film is to be
> > expected.  Afterall Kubrick must have read it, right?  I thought the
> > novel was crap myself, and I refuse to reread it, but that matters
> > nothing.
>
> > > That's why LOTR is
> > > long, boring and silly.
>
> > So you've actually read TLOTR and watched the movies?  I think a case
> > could be made for what you're saying however severe and unfair I think
> > it might be, but I suspect this is just an off-the-cuff remark that
> > you can't well back up, not that it has anything at all to do with
> > what we're talking about.
>
> Remember an opinion is only that.  I don't need to back anything up,

Oh why not? It makes an opinion so much stronger when you back it up.

> only refer to my first watching of the first installment had me
> falling to sleep half-way through.

I actually thought that was the best one of the lot, which has put me
at odds with more than a few in fact.

> It is kind of relevant, because
> you're suggesting that the texts these films are based upon should be
> read in order to enjoy the film to the fullest.

I never suggested that! You suggested that the reason TLOTR is "long,
boring and silly" is because it relies on the supportive text to fill
in the blanks and make it enjoyable, so to speak. This implies that
you've read the text and know what you're talking about. I don't at
all think it's necessary to have read the text to enjoy these movies,
if you like that sort of fantasy thing of course, which Tolkien pretty
much invented. Having read the books in full I can say that Jackson
and co. did a pretty fair job of adapting an enormous amount of highly
detailed material, which in turn follows the books reasonably well.
Not perfect by any means, in fact I think the "Return of the King" was
way too long and botched right at the very end. Still people loved
it, and I'm sure only a small percentage ever entirely read the source
material. That said, I recommend the trilogy wholeheartedly. It's a
very fine work of literature, whether you hate the movies or not.

> That is crap.

Uncrapped it, you must have misunderstood.

>  Any
> film-maker that relies on extra information is selling their film
> short.

I don't have an argument with this. The trick to a really good
adaptation is getting the right cinematic sense of the work being
adapted without going overboard by trying to film it page by page. I
hold Robert Bolt's "Lawrence of Arabia" script to be an excellent
example of this. No way do you have to read "Seven Pillars of Wisdom"
to enjoy Lean's masterpiece, but if you have, you definitely come to
know that Bolt and Lean carefully read every word.

> A detailed analysis shouldn't go anywhere near the book, since
> it's more than feasible that two story-tellers can tell the exact same
> story, yet have conflicting morals and themes they believe are
> prevalent.

I disagree with your notion of a detailed analysis somewhat. I think
every scrap of information that can be gathered from the source
material through the post production of a film is liable to be in any
sort of detailed analysis. I can appreciate what you're getting at as
well as a strict analysis of the film itself, but if someone wants to
dig deeper, the source material is the first place to start. What's
most interesting with "The Shining" to me is the stuff that Kubrick
left out like the topiary animals for example. I have no plans to
delve further into the novel because King is really not my cup of tea.

> > > By itself, it was insignificant and irrelevant.  To me, anyway...
>
> > Ah, to you at least...  A little humble rejoinder never hurt
> > anything.  So do you think Kubrick just set it out there as some kind
> > of "scary" and perverse red herring? Or was he even aware that it made
> > it in to the film?  Explain.
>
> A perverse red herring, something for people to wonder 'what the hell
> was that part apart'... who knows what is in Kubrick's head.  I'm sure
> we could think of a few other scenes from movies that are included for
> nothing else except for a little shock value.

Oh I'm sure too! Why is Alex a bloody-fanged, smecking vampire in his
first fantasy scene in ACO for instance? That wasn't in the book!
The thing is I don't really believe that Kubrick was ever all that
flippant if ever in his directorial decisions. I'm inclined to
believe that there is some deeper reason behind everything that he
allowed into his films. And that's my opinion drawn from decades of
studying his films, reading the literature, and everything I could get
my eyes and ears on in between. I believe it is you who are selling
Kubrick short then. It's your perfect right to do that, but don't
expect me to go along with it.

"Well, are you sure it was the right room?"
i
"piop"

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 18, 12:22 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 8:01 pm, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 9:13 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 17, 12:50 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > In terms of the movie itself, i think the scene is pretty
> > > > > > insignificant.
>
> > > > > This is the first I've seen you actually contribute to the original
> > > > > discussion.
>
> > > > That would be because it is my contribution.  Very observant.
>
> > > It takes no smug awareness of my observance to see that you have next
> > > to nil to offer here.
>
> > > > > > You don't know who the characters are by themselves
> > > > > > and they add very little to the story (just that everything in the
> > > > > > hotel is not right).
>
> > > > > What about the Derwent connection from the novel?  I usually dismiss
> > > > > it myself, but there's that.
>
> > > > I used the words 'the movie itself' to separate the movie from the
> > > > book
>
> > > Oh how unobservant of me....
>
> > > > - films shouldn't rely on supportive texts to provide extra
> > > > information that makes the film more filling.
>
> > > I agree to a certain extent, but nevertheless the novel is the
> > > original source material and deserves some miniscule consideration at
> > > the very least if any detailed analysis of the film is to be
> > > expected.  Afterall Kubrick must have read it, right?  I thought the
> > > novel was crap myself, and I refuse to reread it, but that matters
> > > nothing.
>
> > > > That's why LOTR is
> > > > long, boring and silly.
>
> > > So you've actually read TLOTR and watched the movies?  I think a case
> > > could be made for what you're saying however severe and unfair I think
> > > it might be, but I suspect this is just an off-the-cuff remark that
> > > you can't well back up, not that it has anything at all to do with
> > > what we're talking about.
>
> > Remember an opinion is only that.  I don't need to back anything up,
>
> Oh why not?  It makes an opinion so much stronger when you back it up.
>
> > only refer to my first watching of the first installment had me
> > falling to sleep half-way through.
>
> I actually thought that was the best one of the lot, which has put me
> at odds with more than a few in fact.
>
> > It is kind of relevant, because
> > you're suggesting that the texts these films are based upon should be
> > read in order to enjoy the film to the fullest.
>
> I never suggested that!  You suggested that the reason TLOTR is "long,
> boring and silly" is because it relies on the supportive text to fill
> in the blanks and make it enjoyable, so to speak.  This implies that
> you've read the text and know what you're talking about.  I don't at
> all think it's necessary to have read the text to enjoy these movies,
> if you like that sort of fantasy thing of course, which Tolkien pretty
> much invented.  Having read the books in full I can say that Jackson
> and co. did a pretty fair job of adapting an enormous amount of highly
> detailed material, which in turn follows the books reasonably well.
> Not perfect by any means, in fact I think the "Return of the King" was
> way too long and botched right at the very end.  Still people loved
> it, and I'm sure only a small percentage ever entirely read the source
> material.  That said, I recommend the trilogy wholeheartedly.  It's a
> very fine work of literature, whether you hate the movies or not.
>
> > That is crap.
>
> Uncrapped it, you must have misunderstood.
>
> >  Any
> > film-maker that relies on extra information is selling their film
> > short.
>
> I don't have an argument with this.  The trick to a really good
> adaptation is getting the right cinematic sense of the work being
> adapted without going overboard by trying to film it page by page.  I
> hold Robert Bolt's "Lawrence of Arabia" script to be an excellent
> example of this.  No way do you have to read "Seven Pillars of Wisdom"
> to enjoy Lean's masterpiece, but if you have, you definitely come to
> know that Bolt and Lean carefully read every word.
>
> > A detailed analysis shouldn't go anywhere near the book, since
> > it's more than feasible that two story-tellers can tell the exact same
> > story, yet have conflicting morals and themes they believe are
> > prevalent.
>
> I disagree with your notion of a detailed analysis somewhat.  I think
> every scrap of information that can be gathered from the source
> material through the post production of a film is liable to be in any
> sort of detailed analysis.  I can appreciate what you're getting at as
> well as a strict analysis of the film itself, but if someone wants to
> dig deeper, the source material is the first place to start.  What's
> most interesting with "The Shining" to me is the stuff that Kubrick
> left out like the topiary animals for example.  I have no plans to
> delve further into the novel because King is really not my cup of tea.
>
> > > > By itself, it was insignificant and irrelevant.  To me, anyway...
>
> > > Ah, to you at least...  A little humble rejoinder never hurt
> > > anything.  So do you think Kubrick just set it out there as some kind
> > > of "scary" and perverse red herring? Or was he even aware that it made
> > > it in to the film?  Explain.
>
> > A perverse red herring, something for people to wonder 'what the hell
> > was that part apart'... who knows what is in Kubrick's head.  I'm sure
> > we could think of a few other scenes from movies that are included for
> > nothing else except for a little shock value.
>
> Oh I'm sure too!  Why is Alex a bloody-fanged, smecking vampire in his
> first fantasy scene in ACO for instance?  That wasn't in the book!
> The thing is I don't really believe that Kubrick was ever all that
> flippant if ever in his directorial decisions.  I'm inclined to
> believe that there is some deeper reason behind everything that he
> allowed into his films.  And that's my opinion drawn from decades of
> studying his films, reading the literature, and everything I could get
> my eyes and ears on in between.  I believe it is you who are selling
> Kubrick short then.  It's your perfect right to do that, but don't
> expect me to go along with it.

That's fair enough to have that opinion, but the reason i still say
the source material is irrelevant is because without the source
material and without any meaningful link in any other part of the
shining, the bearsuit BJ really is isolated on an island far, far
away, isn't it? Without any link to any meaning of the event in the
film, you're relying on the balance of probabilities.

I won't go into LOTR - I just can't believe how corny, predictable and
cliched they all are, but different strokes..

[MP]

> That's fair enough to have that opinion, but the reason i still say
> the source material is irrelevant is because without the source
> material and without any meaningful link in any other part of the
> shining, the bearsuit BJ really is isolated on an island far, far
> away, isn't it?  Without any link to any meaning of the event in the
> film, you're relying on the balance of probabilities.
>
> I won't go into LOTR - I just can't believe how corny, predictable and
> cliched they all are, but different strokes..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"The difficulty is that all art is both abstract and suggestive at the
same time. You can't show everything that you do or it's no longer
art. Art lies in suggestion. The great difficulty for filmmakers is,
precisely, not to show things. Ideally, nothing should be shown, but
that's impossible. So things must be shown from one sole angle that
evokes all other angles without showing them." - Robert Bresson

"The essence of dramatic form is to let an idea come over people
without it being plainly stated. When you say something directly, it's
simply not as potent as it is when you allow people to discover it for
themselves." - Kubrick


What this thread has turned into, really, is an argument over whether
the blowjob scene has any meaning, or whether Kubrick simply included
it for kicks.

But are Wendy's other "shock visions" just arbitary jolts of horror?
How can we debate the meaning of blood filled elevators, negro corpses
and mutilated twins, but not this one particular vision? You're
effectively saying that every shining in the film is imbued with
meaning, except this one vision.

Wendy sees five visions and each one resonates with or mirrors some
other occurance in the rest of the film.

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 19, 2:01 pm, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That's fair enough to have that opinion, but the reason i still say
> > the source material is irrelevant is because without the source
> > material and without any meaningful link in any other part of the
> > shining, the bearsuit BJ really is isolated on an island far, far
> > away, isn't it?  Without any link to any meaning of the event in the
> > film, you're relying on the balance of probabilities.
>
> > I won't go into LOTR - I just can't believe how corny, predictable and
> > cliched they all are, but different strokes..- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> "The difficulty is that all art is both abstract and suggestive at the
> same time. You can't show everything that you do or it's no longer
> art. Art lies in suggestion. The great difficulty for filmmakers is,
> precisely, not to show things. Ideally, nothing should be shown, but
> that's impossible. So things must be shown from one sole angle that
> evokes all other angles without showing them." - Robert Bresson
>
> "The essence of dramatic form is to let an idea come over people
> without it being plainly stated. When you say something directly, it's
> simply not as potent as it is when you allow people to discover it for
> themselves." - Kubrick
>
> What this thread has turned into, really, is an argument over whether
> the blowjob scene has any meaning, or whether Kubrick simply included
> it for kicks.
>
> But are Wendy's other "shock visions" just arbitary jolts of horror?
> How can we debate the meaning of blood filled elevators, negro corpses
> and mutilated twins, but not this one particular vision? You're
> effectively saying that every shining in the film is imbued with
> meaning, except this one vision.
>
> Wendy sees five visions and each one resonates with or mirrors some
> other occurance in the rest of the film.

Some lovely quotes to justify the post modern approach to critiquing
something, but in relation to all the other visions, I felt like those
were all explained a bit more in the rest of the film. The girls were
grady's daughters, the blood filled halls were danny shining and
realising. Giving the bearsuit bj meaning is speculating, and nothing
more without looking at the book (which is irrelevant).

[ichorwhip]

On Aug 18, 9:00 pm, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 12:22 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 8:01 pm, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 18, 9:13 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 17, 12:50 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > In terms of the movie itself, i think the scene is pretty
> > > > > > > insignificant.
>
> > > > > > This is the first I've seen you actually contribute to the original
> > > > > > discussion.
>
> > > > > That would be because it is my contribution.  Very observant.
>
> > > > It takes no smug awareness of my observance to see that you have next
> > > > to nil to offer here.
>
> > > > > > > You don't know who the characters are by themselves
> > > > > > > and they add very little to the story (just that everything in the
> > > > > > > hotel is not right).
>
> > > > > > What about the Derwent connection from the novel?  I usually dismiss
> > > > > > it myself, but there's that.
>
> > > > > I used the words 'the movie itself' to separate the movie from the
> > > > > book
>
> > > > Oh how unobservant of me....
>
> > > > > - films shouldn't rely on supportive texts to provide extra
> > > > > information that makes the film more filling.
>
> > > > I agree to a certain extent, but nevertheless the novel is the
> > > > original source material and deserves some miniscule consideration at
> > > > the very least if any detailed analysis of the film is to be
> > > > expected.  Afterall Kubrick must have read it, right?  I thought the
> > > > novel was crap myself, and I refuse to reread it, but that matters
> > > > nothing.
>
> > > > > That's why LOTR is
> > > > > long, boring and silly.
>
> > > > So you've actually read TLOTR and watched the movies?  I think a case
> > > > could be made for what you're saying however severe and unfair I think
> > > > it might be, but I suspect this is just an off-the-cuff remark that
> > > > you can't well back up, not that it has anything at all to do with
> > > > what we're talking about.
>
> > > Remember an opinion is only that.  I don't need to back anything up,
>
> > Oh why not?  It makes an opinion so much stronger when you back it up.
>
> > > only refer to my first watching of the first installment had me
> > > falling to sleep half-way through.
>
> > I actually thought that was the best one of the lot, which has put me
> > at odds with more than a few in fact.
>
> > > It is kind of relevant, because
> > > you're suggesting that the texts these films are based upon should be
> > > read in order to enjoy the film to the fullest.
>
> > I never suggested that!  You suggested that the reason TLOTR is "long,
> > boring and silly" is because it relies on the supportive text to fill
> > in the blanks and make it enjoyable, so to speak.  This implies that
> > you've read the text and know what you're talking about.  I don't at
> > all think it's necessary to have read the text to enjoy these movies,
> > if you like that sort of fantasy thing of course, which Tolkien pretty
> > much invented.  Having read the books in full I can say that Jackson
> > and co. did a pretty fair job of adapting an enormous amount of highly
> > detailed material, which in turn follows the books reasonably well.
> > Not perfect by any means, in fact I think the "Return of the King" was
> > way too long and botched right at the very end.  Still people loved
> > it, and I'm sure only a small percentage ever entirely read the source
> > material.  That said, I recommend the trilogy wholeheartedly.  It's a
> > very fine work of literature, whether you hate the movies or not.
>
> > > That is crap.
>
> > Uncrapped it, you must have misunderstood.
>
> > >  Any
> > > film-maker that relies on extra information is selling their film
> > > short.
>
> > I don't have an argument with this.  The trick to a really good
> > adaptation is getting the right cinematic sense of the work being
> > adapted without going overboard by trying to film it page by page.  I
> > hold Robert Bolt's "Lawrence of Arabia" script to be an excellent
> > example of this.  No way do you have to read "Seven Pillars of Wisdom"
> > to enjoy Lean's masterpiece, but if you have, you definitely come to
> > know that Bolt and Lean carefully read every word.
>
> > > A detailed analysis shouldn't go anywhere near the book, since
> > > it's more than feasible that two story-tellers can tell the exact same
> > > story, yet have conflicting morals and themes they believe are
> > > prevalent.
>
> > I disagree with your notion of a detailed analysis somewhat.  I think
> > every scrap of information that can be gathered from the source
> > material through the post production of a film is liable to be in any
> > sort of detailed analysis.  I can appreciate what you're getting at as
> > well as a strict analysis of the film itself, but if someone wants to
> > dig deeper, the source material is the first place to start.  What's
> > most interesting with "The Shining" to me is the stuff that Kubrick
> > left out like the topiary animals for example.  I have no plans to
> > delve further into the novel because King is really not my cup of tea.
>
> > > > > By itself, it was insignificant and irrelevant.  To me, anyway...
>
> > > > Ah, to you at least...  A little humble rejoinder never hurt
> > > > anything.  So do you think Kubrick just set it out there as some kind
> > > > of "scary" and perverse red herring? Or was he even aware that it made
> > > > it in to the film?  Explain.
>
> > > A perverse red herring, something for people to wonder 'what the hell
> > > was that part apart'... who knows what is in Kubrick's head.  I'm sure
> > > we could think of a few other scenes from movies that are included for
> > > nothing else except for a little shock value.
>
> > Oh I'm sure too!  Why is Alex a bloody-fanged, smecking vampire in his
> > first fantasy scene in ACO for instance?  That wasn't in the book!
> > The thing is I don't really believe that Kubrick was ever all that
> > flippant if ever in his directorial decisions.  I'm inclined to
> > believe that there is some deeper reason behind everything that he
> > allowed into his films.  And that's my opinion drawn from decades of
> > studying his films, reading the literature, and everything I could get
> > my eyes and ears on in between.  I believe it is you who are selling
> > Kubrick short then.  It's your perfect right to do that, but don't
> > expect me to go along with it.
>
> That's fair enough to have that opinion, but the reason i still say
> the source material is irrelevant is because without the source
> material and without any meaningful link in any other part of the
> shining, the bearsuit BJ really is isolated on an island far, far
> away, isn't it?

Nope, it's one in a series of ghostly manifestations that Wendy
observes at that point in the film. There is also the control or
submission theme, but you dismissed that as "decontructionism for the
sake of it", which seems to be a repeated phrase for you who doesn't
appear to really want to discuss or speculate on anything in this film
for some reason (maybe you should stick to cricket?) And what of the
class struggle symbolized by a servant in a ridiculous costume on his
knees subserviently sucking a rich guy in his natty tux? But he might
have been paid?!!! That's right! That makes them social equals! "All
the best people" suck each other for fun! pfffft!!!!!!! There's also
the displacement of the female (Wendy) as a "sperm bank" as well, but
why bother to go back into all that "deconstuctionist crapola", eh?
Your die is cast and bog only knows you can't go back on your word so
as to not lose face like that should matter to the truth of anything
around here. That's the way I'm seeing it. And so I release you...

> Without any link to any meaning of the event in the
> film, you're relying on the balance of probabilities.

> I won't go into LOTR - I just can't believe how corny, predictable and
> cliched they all are, but different strokes..

Whatever guy, you were the one who brought it up.

"It's like I go to sleep, and he shows me things but when I wake up, I
can't remember everything."
i
"piop"

[R. Spanditt]

On Aug 20, 9:26 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 9:00 pm, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 12:22 pm, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 17, 8:01 pm, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 18, 9:13 am, ichorwhip <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 17, 12:50 am, "R. Spanditt" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > In terms of the movie itself, i think the scene is pretty
> > > > > > > > insignificant.
>
> > > > > > > This is the first I've seen you actually contribute to the original
> > > > > > > discussion.
>
> > > > > > That would be because it is my contribution. Very observant.
>
> > > > > It takes no smug awareness of my observance to see that you have next
> > > > > to nil to offer here.
>
> > > > > > > > You don't know who the characters are by themselves
> > > > > > > > and they add very little to the story (just that everything in the
> > > > > > > > hotel is not right).
>
> > > > > > > What about the Derwent connection from the novel? I usually dismiss
> > > > > > > it myself, but there's that.
>
> > > > > > I used the words 'the movie itself' to separate the movie from the
> > > > > > book
>
> > > > > Oh how unobservant of me....
>
> > > > > > - films shouldn't rely on supportive texts to provide extra
> > > > > > information that makes the film more filling.
>
> > > > > I agree to a certain extent, but nevertheless the novel is the
> > > > > original source material and deserves some miniscule consideration at
> > > > > the very least if any detailed analysis of the film is to be
> > > > > expected. Afterall Kubrick must have read it, right? I thought the
> > > > > novel was crap myself, and I refuse to reread it, but that matters
> > > > > nothing.
>
> > > > > > That's why LOTR is
> > > > > > long, boring and silly.
>
> > > > > So you've actually read TLOTR and watched the movies? I think a case
> > > > > could be made for what you're saying however severe and unfair I think
> > > > > it might be, but I suspect this is just an off-the-cuff remark that
> > > > > you can't well back up, not that it has anything at all to do with
> > > > > what we're talking about.
>
> > > > Remember an opinion is only that. I don't need to back anything up,
>
> > > Oh why not? It makes an opinion so much stronger when you back it up.
>
> > > > only refer to my first watching of the first installment had me
> > > > falling to sleep half-way through.
>
> > > I actually thought that was the best one of the lot, which has put me
> > > at odds with more than a few in fact.
>
> > > > It is kind of relevant, because
> > > > you're suggesting that the texts these films are based upon should be
> > > > read in order to enjoy the film to the fullest.
>
> > > I never suggested that! You suggested that the reason TLOTR is "long,
> > > boring and silly" is because it relies on the supportive text to fill
> > > in the blanks and make it enjoyable, so to speak. This implies that
> > > you've read the text and know what you're talking about. I don't at
> > > all think it's necessary to have read the text to enjoy these movies,
> > > if you like that sort of fantasy thing of course, which Tolkien pretty
> > > much invented. Having read the books in full I can say that Jackson
> > > and co. did a pretty fair job of adapting an enormous amount of highly
> > > detailed material, which in turn follows the books reasonably well.
> > > Not perfect by any means, in fact I think the "Return of the King" was
> > > way too long and botched right at the very end. Still people loved
> > > it, and I'm sure only a small percentage ever entirely read the source
> > > material. That said, I recommend the trilogy wholeheartedly. It's a
> > > very fine work of literature, whether you hate the movies or not.
>
> > > > That is crap.
>
> > > Uncrapped it, you must have misunderstood.
>
> > > > Any
> > > > film-maker that relies on extra information is selling their film
> > > > short.
>
> > > I don't have an argument with this. The trick to a really good
> > > adaptation is getting the right cinematic sense of the work being
> > > adapted without going overboard by trying to film it page by page. I
> > > hold Robert Bolt's "Lawrence of Arabia" script to be an excellent
> > > example of this. No way do you have to read "Seven Pillars of Wisdom"
> > > to enjoy Lean's masterpiece, but if you have, you definitely come to
> > > know that Bolt and Lean carefully read every word.
>
> > > > A detailed analysis shouldn't go anywhere near the book, since
> > > > it's more than feasible that two story-tellers can tell the exact same
> > > > story, yet have conflicting morals and themes they believe are
> > > > prevalent.
>
> > > I disagree with your notion of a detailed analysis somewhat. I think
> > > every scrap of information that can be gathered from the source
> > > material through the post production of a film is liable to be in any
> > > sort of detailed analysis. I can appreciate what you're getting at as
> > > well as a strict analysis of the film itself, but if someone wants to
> > > dig deeper, the source material is the first place to start. What's
> > > most interesting with "The Shining" to me is the stuff that Kubrick
> > > left out like the topiary animals for example. I have no plans to
> > > delve further into the novel because King is really not my cup of tea.
>
> > > > > > By itself, it was insignificant and irrelevant. To me, anyway...
>
> > > > > Ah, to you at least... A little humble rejoinder never hurt
> > > > > anything. So do you think Kubrick just set it out there as some kind
> > > > > of "scary" and perverse red herring? Or was he even aware that it made
> > > > > it in to the film? Explain.
>
> > > > A perverse red herring, something for people to wonder 'what the hell
> > > > was that part apart'... who knows what is in Kubrick's head. I'm sure
> > > > we could think of a few other scenes from movies that are included for
> > > > nothing else except for a little shock value.
>
> > > Oh I'm sure too! Why is Alex a bloody-fanged, smecking vampire in his
> > > first fantasy scene in ACO for instance? That wasn't in the book!
> > > The thing is I don't really believe that Kubrick was ever all that
> > > flippant if ever in his directorial decisions. I'm inclined to
> > > believe that there is some deeper reason behind everything that he
> > > allowed into his films. And that's my opinion drawn from decades of
> > > studying his films, reading the literature, and everything I could get
> > > my eyes and ears on in between. I believe it is you who are selling
> > > Kubrick short then. It's your perfect right to do that, but don't
> > > expect me to go along with it.
>
> > That's fair enough to have that opinion, but the reason i still say
> > the source material is irrelevant is because without the source
> > material and without any meaningful link in any other part of the
> > shining, the bearsuit BJ really is isolated on an island far, far
> > away, isn't it?
>
> Nope, it's one in a series of ghostly manifestations that Wendy
> observes at that point in the film.

Which somehow makes it relevant because.... ?

> sake of it", which seems to be a repeated phrase for you who doesn't
> appear to really want to discuss or speculate on anything in this film
> for some reason (maybe you should stick to cricket?) And what of the
> class struggle symbolized by a servant in a ridiculous costume on his
> knees subserviently sucking a rich guy in his natty tux? But he might
> have been paid?!!! That's right! That makes them social equals! "All

Judgements, judgements... I'm not dismissing your right to speculate,
only marking it as nothing more.

Keep it relevant, and stay happy.

[kelpzoidzl]

You don't need to reply to foreign spam to get jollies. There's plenty preversions in the archives.

What have you done to my footlocker Private Pyle?

[Don Stockbauer]

Actually this was a spam with a little merit. The strip was, as I warned, tame. The couple imitating the sounds of intercourse to fool someone else was actually funny.

[Don Stockbauer]

Actress in the bearsuit ---- Natassia Kinski????

[Don Stockbauer]

I just thought it would be funny if Natassja played the bear in both the Shining and The Hotel New Hampshire.

[kelpzoidzl]

Thats a curious thought. She was Cat Woman too.

[Don Stockbauer]

I'm sure somewhere it can be found out who was in that bear suit, the Shining one, that is.. Nice trivia question,

[kelpzoidzl]

I thought I read someone say the name of the actor, but on searching the only thing I found was someone saying to look at the bear's eyes, claiming it was Shelley Duval.

[Harry Bailey]

And frankly, blue, I'm quite shocked and disappointed by your
extremely ignorant pimp talk here. I had previously assumed - wrongly,
it now seems - you were one of the more perceptive and knowledgeable
posters left around here rather than yet another lost consumer zombie.

Or maybe you wrote the post when you were stoned.

[kelpzoidzl]

On Aug 7, 11:56 am, MP <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the triple post. I linked the "blow job sequence" to the
> "doctor's sequence"...perhaps the other 5 horrific visions that Wendy
> sees links to earlier scenes as well.
>
> 1st Horror: Dog suit blowjob
> 2nd Horror: Halloran's corpse
> 3rd Horror: Great party, isn't it?
> 4th Horror: Elevators of blood
> 5th Horror: Room full of dead skeletons (is this the gold room or the
> lounge?)
>
> Dog suit blowjob- Danny with doctor
> Halloran dead - We had to repel a few Indian attacks
> Great party isn't it? - Donner Party? Off the wagon?
> Elevators of blood - It's all so beautiful
> Dead skeletons - Only the best people?
>
> The five horrors that Wendy encounters definitely seems to have a sort
> of progression. The veils are being lifted from her eyes and she
> gradually begins to "see" more and more. Abuse at home leads to
> Halloran's corpse which leads to elevators of genocide which leads to
> the rotting corpses of those responsible.
>
> Jack spends his life bending over backwards, obeying the orders of the
> house. These submissive feeling give rise to anger and thus he takes
> his hate out on those weaker than himself. Ironically the Hotel then
> takes Jack’s resentment and insecurities and unfairly channels them
> against external targets for it’s own private gain.

Might as well bring in Native Amercan myths

heres one

"In the beginning before there were people, before there were animals
a lone woman lived in a cave. She lived on the roots and berries of
the plants. One night a magical dog crept into her cave and stretched
out on the her bed beside her. As the night grew long the dog began to
change. His body became smooth and almost hairless. His limbs grew
long and straight. His features changed into those of a handsome
warrior. Nine months later the woman birthed a child. He was the first
Chippewa male and through him came the Chippewa peoples."


Of course there ar also the composite creatures that are part dog part
wolf part bear part deer.


dc